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

     ,oastal Zone
      Information
       Center

                                                         REGIONAL OCEAN
                                                         COASTLINE PLAN
                                                         FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
      c-

          ... . ... ....

               HT                                                                                      ASSOCIATION
               393                                                                                    OF BAY AREA
               . C32                                                                                 GOVERNMENTS
               S247
               1973                                        BAY AREA REGIONAL PLANNING PROGRAM

    																	01968

                                   REGIONAL OCEAN
                                   COASTLINE PLAN
                                   FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

                                  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                  COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                  2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                  CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

                                        Property of CSC Library

                                                                                                          ABAG  ASSOCIATION
                                                                                                                OF BAY AREA
                                                                                                                GOVERNMENTS

                                                                       Adopted by the ABAG Executive Committee; July 19, 1973

       HT 393, c32s2471973
               25424030
                                    The preparation of this report was financed in part through a Comprehensive Planning Assistance Grant from the
         DEC 23 1996                Department of Housing and Urban Development, under the provisions of Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954
                                    as amended, and through the auspices of the Council on Intergovernmental Relations, State of California.

                       BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA            I. Report No.                                  2.                       3. Recipient's Accession No.
                       SHEET                        I              CPA- 1020. 0 1 -E3               I
                       4. Title and Subtitle                                                                                 5. Report Date
                                          REGIONAL OCEAN COASTLINE PLAN                  FOR THE                               July, 1973 (approved)
                                          SAN FRANCIISCO BAY AREA                                                            6.

                       7. Author(s)                                                                                          8. Performing Organization Rept.
                                          SEDWAY/COOKE                                                                         No.
                       9. Performing Organization Name and Address                                                           10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
                                          ASSOCIATION OF BAY           AREA GOVERNMENTS                                             COASTLINE
                                          CLAREMONT HOTEL                                                                    11. Contract/Grant No.
                                          BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94705                                                              CPA-1020.01

                       12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address                                                          13. Type of Report & Period
                                                                                                                                 Covered
                                          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT                                          FINAL
                                          WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410                                                            14.

                       15. Supplementary Notes

                       16. Abstracts Thi S P I an i s concerned w i th the Ocean Coast I i ne of the San Franc 1 sco Bay Area.
                         It is a plan to promote coastline conservation while encouraging use and to promote a
                         regionally responsible system for coastal management. The Plan has objectives and
                         policies for the areas of environmental quality, circulation, open space, conservation,
                         and development. Some coastal areas are designated for possible development and other
                         areas for permanent preservation as open space. Three implementation strategies are
                         discussed which would make the policies of the Plan a reality; public service strategy
                         (accessibility plus water and sewer services), acquisition strategy, and development
                         review strategy. The Plan contains recommendations ona governmental organization for
                         coastal planning and management as well as a process for coordinating the regional-
                         local development review process.

                       17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors

                       17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
                             Ocean Coastline Plan, Coastline Plan, Coastal Zone Management Plan.

                       17c. COSATI Field/Group
                       18. Availability Statement f rom:                                                    19.. Security Class (This       21. No. of Pages
                          Association of Bay Area Governments                                                   Report) LASSIFIED                 96
                                                                                                                   UNC
                          Claremont Hotel         , Berkeley, California                94705               20. Security Class (This        22. Price
                                                                                                                Page
                                            Handling Charge                                                        UNCLASSIFIED
                       FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)                                                                                             USCOMM-DC 14952-P72

                                         PARTICIPANTS

                                         Association of Bay Area Governments
                                         Councilman Donald F. Dillon, President
                                         Supervisor Warren N. Bogges, Vice-President
                                         Executive Committee
                                         Regional Planning Committee
                                         Regional Home Rule Goals Committee

                                         Ocean Coastline Planning Committee:
                                         Councilman Lenard E. Grote, Chairman, Pleasant Hill
                                         Councilman Carlisle Becker, Tiburon
                                         Councilman John H. Downey, Jr.*, Santa Rosa
                                         Councilman Frank Egger, Fairfax
                                         Supervisor Jean Fassler, San Mateo County
                                         Mrs. Ellen J. Johnck, Citizen Representative
                                         Mayor Gregory Jones, Jr., Santa Rosa
                                         Councilman Grace McCarthy, Pacifica
                                         Supervisor Robert Mendelsohn, San Francisco County
                                         Mrs. Amy Meyer*, Citizen Representative
                                         Cooncilman Robert Plowright*, Newark
                                         Supervisor Bob Theiller, Sonoma County
                                         Professor Georg Treichel, Citizen Representative
                                         Councilwoman Ilene Weinreb, Hayward
                                         Supervisor Michael Wornum, Past Chairman, Marin County
                                         *Former Committee Members

                                         Ocean Coastline Citizens Adivsory Committee:
                                         Included several hundred citizens who participated in meetings
                                         and contributed to twelve public hearings on the Ocean Coastline
                                         Plan. Edward (Ted) Roberts, Chairman

                                         Ocean Coastline Technical Advisory Committee:
                                         Approximately one hundred agencies were advised of the progress
                                         of the Ocean Coastline Planning Program and responded with tech-
                                         nical advice. James Giannopoulos, Chairman

                                         Participating Staff:
                                         Association of Bay Area Governments
                                         Revan A. F. Tranter, Executive Director
                                         Rudolph R. Platzek, Director of Planning and Programming
                                         William H. Liskamm, Project Manager
                                         Robert 0. Odland, Regional Planner-
                                         Lizette Weiss, Director of Public Affairs
                                         Frances Duffy, Administrative Secretary
                                         Sylvia Paull, Editor
                                         Ross Turner, Chief Graphic Designer
                                         Margie Otis, Graphic Designer
                                         Pauline Kuepper, Carteographer

                                                  iv

                Consultants:
                SEDWAY/COOKE
                Urban Environmental
                Planners and Designers
                San Francisco, California

                in association with
                INGMIRE-PATRI
                BAXTER, McDONALD & SMART, INC.

                Cover Photograph:
                Far WE,st Laboratory

                                                                                              v

                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                      1.      INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

                                              NEED FOR THE PLAN                                                                                          I
                                              COASTAL GOALS AND POLICIES                                                                                 I
                                              SUPPORTING STRATEGIES                                                                                      2
                                              ORGANIZATION, POWERS AND PROCEDURES                                                                        5

                                      11.     THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

                                              INTRODUCTION                                                                                               7
                                              COASTAL CONFLICTS AND PROBLEMS                                                                             7
                                              Coastal Use Conflicts                                                                                      7
                                              Public Access                                                                                              8
                                              Pressures for Development                                                                                  8
                                                  Allocation of Coastal Resources                                                                        8

                                                  Tax Structure                                                                                          9

                                                  Public Facilities and Services                                                                         9
                                              Major Governmental Influences                                                                              9
                                                  Federal and State Agencies                                                                             10
                                                  Regional and Local Agencies                                                                            11
                                              ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS                                                                13
                                              Introduction                                                                                               13
                                              Regional Coastal Resources                                                                                 13
                                                  The Ocean and Climate                                                                                  13

                                                  Agricultural Resources                                                                                 14

                                              Recreation Resources and Amenities                                                                         14

                                              Marine and Coastal Wildlife Habitat                                                                        15
                                              Hazards to Public Safety                                                                                   17

                                                  Introduction                                                                                           17
                                                  Earth Stability                                                                                        17

                                                  Flood Hazard                                                                                           18

                                      III. REGIONAL COASTAL OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

                                              INTRODUCTION                                                                                               19
                                              OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES                                                                                    19
                                              Environmental Quality                                                                                      19

                                                                          vi

                           PLiblic Enjoyment                                                                                20
                           Open Space                                                                                       20
                           Conservation                                                                                     22
                           Development                                                                                      22
                           LOCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS: CONSERVATION/DEVELOPMENT                                                23
                           Community Growth                                                                                 24
                           Open Use-Limited Development                                                                     25
                           Natural Resource Conservation                                                                    26

                           Determinants                                                                                     26
                              Economic Dependency                                                                           26
                              Public Benefit                                                                                27

                              Immediate Shoreline                                                                           28

                    IV. SUPPORTING STRATEGIES

                           IN-rRODUCTION                                                                                    31
                           PUBLIC SERVICES                                                                                  31
                           Accessibility Strategy                                                                           32
                              Accessibility Implications: Coastal Roadways                                                  33
                              Accessibility Implications: Coastal Trails                                                    36
                           Water and Sewer Service Strategy                                                                 38
                              Community Growth                                                                              38
                              Open Use - Limited Development                                                                39
                              Natural Resource Conservation                                                                 39
                              Outside Community Growth                                                                      39
                           ACQUISITION                                                                                      41
                           Rationale for Acquisition                                                                        41
                           Assignment of Priorities                                                                         42
                           DEVELOPMENT REVIEW                                                                               A3
                           Conservation/Development Policy                                                                  45
                           Regional Open Space Resources                                                                    45
                              Wildlife Habitat Resources                                                                    45
                              Public Recreation Resources                                                                   45
                              Prime Agricultural Resources                                                                  46
                           Hazards to Public Safety                                                                         47
                           Public Services and Facilities                                                                   47
                           Public Access to the Shoreline                                                                   47
                           Impact on the Natural and Physical Environment                                                   47
                              RE!Source Conservation                                                                        48

                                                              Vii

                    Water Resources                                                                                48
                    Environmental Quality                                                                          48,,--:-

                    Visual Impact                                                                                  49

          V.     ORGANIZATION, POWERS AND PROCEDURES

                 INTRODUCTION                                                                                      51
                 ORGANIZATION                                                                                      52
                 POWERS AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION                                                          54
                 Public Facilities Powers and Procedures                                                           54
                 Regulatory Powers and Procedures                                                                  56
                    Development Review                                                                             56
                    Intergovernmental Alternatives for Regulation                                                  57

                    Recommendations                                                                                60
                 ACQUISITION POWERS AND PROCEDURES                                                                 63

          APPENDIX: Survey and Analysis of Existing Environmental Conditions

                 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF METHOD                                                                65
                 BASIC DATA MAPPING                                                                                66
                 Visual Resources                                                                                  67
                 Ocean Coastal Marine Resources                                                                    67
                 Scientific and Educational Study Areas                                                            68
                 Acknowledged Recreation Resources                                                                 69
                 Climate and Agricultural Soils                                                                    70
                 Vegetation and Grazing Soils                                                                      71
                 Slope                                                                                             72
                 Seismic Response                                                                                  73
                 Earth Stability and Flood Hazard                                                                  73
                    Known Critical Formations and Landslides                                                       73

                    Known Flood Prone Areas                                                                        75
                    Estimated Flood Prone Areas                                                                    75
                    Relative Erosion Susceptibility of Coastal Geologic Formations                                 76
                 Known Problem Soils                                                                               78
                 Seismic Sea Wave Hazard                                                                           79
                 Land Use                                                                                          79
                 1 nfrastructure                                                                                   79
                 Land Use Controls                                                                                 81

                                                                               viii

                                        CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT                                                       82
                                        OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS                                                      82
                                        Wildlife Habitats                                                                  83

                                        Recreation Resources                                                               83
                                        Agricultural Resources                                                             83
                                        Environmental Hazards to Public Safety                                             84
                                        OPEN SPACE VALUES AND CONSTRAINTS

                                         1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

                                         NEED FOR THE PLAN

                                         The meeting of land and ocean in the San Francisco Bay Region is one of the most
                                         prominent features of a unique and varied environment. Ironically, the ocean coast-
                                         line, by its appeal, generates the very forces which threaten it. In response to this
                                         threat to the coastal area and its resources, the Association of Bay Area Govern-
                                         ments has prepared this Regional Ocean Coastline Plan as the Coastal Element of the
                                         Regional Plan.
                                         The coastal zone includes a set of fragile ecological systems, much of which cannot
                                         tolerate heavy human use. The coast's vulnerability has sparked a growing regional
                                         desire for more permanent conservation action. Similar sentiment from throughout
                                         the State culminated in passage of the Coastal Zone Conservation Act in 1972.
                                         Coastal development has been the result of a complex set of public and private
                                         decisions made in an uncoordinated and incremental manner. Moreover, many hidden
                                         "costs" of development are passed on to the public, including environmental pollu-
                                         tion and degradation of natural resources; these should be more explicitly considered.
                                         Additionally, public uses and uses which provide a significant public benefit should
                                         be better able to compete in the market for needed sites.

                                         Existing and future use of natural resources, recreation resources, scenic values, and
                                         unique agricultural lands of the coastal area involve decisions which cannot be made
                                         solely by local governments which are not always able to identify larger interests.
                                         Although each governmental level has important contributions to make to a com-
                                         prehensive planning and management process, regional, state and national perspectives
                                         are needed. Thus, this plan presupposes that responsibility for the future use of
                                         finite and often perishable resources will rest with that level of government best able
                                         to consider the particular issue rationally, responsibly and responsively.

                                         COASTAL GOALS AND POLICIES

                                         The plan seeks to achieve two primary goals:

                                         To promote the conservation of coastal resources of regional significance, while
                                         encouraging utilization of coastal lands and waters to benefit existing and future
                                         populations,

                                         To promote a regionally - responsible system to influence, administer and, where
                                         necessary, regulate public and private uses in the coastal area.

                                         The Regional Ocean Coastline Plan includes basic regional coastal policies regarding
                                         conservation and utilization of coastal resources, maintenance ard enhancement of
                                         environmental quality, and the appropriate use or retention of open spaces. The

                                                                     -2-

                         plan's,policies are based on the premises that use of coastal resources should not be
                         allowed to diminish the quality or integrity of the coastal environment, and that it
                         is in the regional interest to promote conservation and enhancement of the coastal
                         area for use and enjoyment by present and future generations.
                         It is recommended that coastal resources with a significant value to the region as a
                         whole should be reserved for uses which are dependent upon them and which provide
                         substantial public benefit. Thus, on the basis of documented resource values, all
                         coastal lands and waters are classified into one of three conservation/development
                         designations: Community Growth, Open Use/Limited Development and Natural
                         Resource Conservation.

                         GMerally, only those areas within which relatively intensive coastal use and develop-
                         Ment may be permitted have been designated for community growth. Areas which
                         should remain predominantly in open space use have been designated for either open
                         use - limited development or natural resource conservation. In each of these, the
                         immediate shoreline is considered more valuable and more vulnerable to adverse
                         development impacts. Hence, more stringent requirements are proposed for that
                         area,

                         Community Growth areas include existing population settlement areas 1) which have
                         adequate levels of accessibility and public services or those which may be readily
                         expanded; 2) where there is little significant conflict with open space values or
                         significant hazard to public safety; and 3) whose controlled growth would be
                         compatible with the regional coastal policies, In a community growth area, only
                         developments which are typically coastal - related or oriented to the specific local
                         community are appropriate.

                         Open Use - Limited Development areas should have open uses predominating, but
                         some limited development may be permitted which respects the coastal character,
                         is able clearly to demonstrate either substantial coastal economic dependency or,
                         significant public benefit, and is compatible with both open space resource retention
                         and the severe hazards to public safety often associated with these areas.

                         Natural Resource Conservation areas are all designated regional open space value
                         are-as, specifically including: marine and coastal wildlife habitats, prime agricultural
                         resources, and public recreational resources. These are areas appropriate for only
                         Open space uses which will provide for retention of these values. In natural resource
                         conservation areas, only those land or water uses are appropriate which: clearly
                         demonstrate both substantial coastal economic dependency and significant public
                         berief it; are without reasonable alternative sites outside the natural resource conser-
                         vation area; are compatible with the severe hazards often associated with these
                         areas; and will provide for the retention of identified regional open space resources.

                         SUPPORTING STRATEGIES

                         Regulation is the most important tool for implementing the plan. This power has
                         been delegated largely to local governments, whose efforts have not yet been effec-
                         tiVE in curtailing the threats to coastal regional resources. Thus, implementation
                         of the Regional Ocean Coastline Plan must rely on additional avenues and techniques,

                                                                                    -3-

                                       some of which may be applied immediately by ABAG and the regional coastal com-
                                       missions. Others will require new enabling legislation or cooperative action by
                                       regional and local jurisdictions.
                                       These supporting strategies provide a guide to actions which influence the location
                                       and intensity of development, and to public acquisition and development actions on
                                       coastal lands and waters.

                                       Public Services

                                       Coastal development should be directed to designated community growth areas and
                                       away from areas of high open space value or hazards to public safety through control
                                       of location, capacity, and timing of major public facilities.

                                       Accessibility

                                       1 .   A regional coastal recreation access plan to develop an attractive public trans-
                                       portation alternative should be prepared immediately. Supplementary public recrea-
                                       tional access should be provided for all significant increases in recreational facilities.

                                       2.    Major upgradings which would significantly increase the vehicular capacity of
                                       the coastal roadway network may be permitted only within the Greater San
                                       Francisco County urbanized area and environs.

                                       3.    Proposals for development outside community growth areas also should provide
                                       local-serving commercial facilities and internal circulation systems to minimize
                                       external automobile travel.

                                       4.    A trail system is also proposed, including biking, hiking and horse trails to serve
                                       regional needs. Major recommendations consist of interconnected shoreline, coastal
                                       terrace, and upland ridge trailways, and trails to provide access to important recrea-
                                       tional opportunities and interior population centers.

                                       Water Supply and Sewage Disposal
                                       1 .   In Community Growth areas, extension of facilities and creation or expansion
                                       of service districts are permissible.

                                       2.    In Open Use-Limited Development areas, no expansion of existing facilities to
                                       increase capacity beyond that necessary to serve existing development should be
                                       permitted. In such areas only internally supporting, self-contained facilities should
                                       be permitted.

                                       3.    In Natural Resource Conservation areas, extensions of water supply and sewer
                                       service facilities may be provided for recreational uses, and extensions of water
                                       supply facilities may be provided for agricultural uses.

                                       Five additional strategies deal with water supply and sewage disposal outside com-
                                       munity growth areas:

                                                                 -4-

                      a.   except for agricultural uses, no interbasin transfer of water shall be permitted;
                      b.   effluent treatment must be accomplished locally, using an appropriate land
                      disposal or package treatment system, and all discharges must comply with require-
                      ments to be set by regional water quality control boards;
                      C.   all direct and indirect costs for water supply and sewage disposal systems
                      should be borne by their developer or user and not passed on to the public;
                      d.   sewer and water systems must,be designed and constructed at a capacity
                      appropriate only for the proposed use;
                      e.   services may be inaugurated, expanded or extended for development already
                      initiated which assumed available services, and development already completed for
                      which such service is now required by discharge requirements of a regional water
                      quality control board.

                      Acquisition
                      Priorities for acquisition hav e been assigned and mapped in the plan. Key coastal
                      open space resources which do not lend themselves to regulation are assigned an
                      acquisition priority, based on the relative regional open space value of the area and
                      the threat of loss. It is not the intent of these priorities to supplant continuing park,
                      recreation, open space or natural preserve acquisition programs of the many agencies
                      involved in such work, but to augment regulation in an attempt to assure compatible
                      use of regional open space resources.

                      Development Review
                      Implementation of the coastal plan will rely in large part on effective and coordinated
                      review of development by public agencies. Regulation consistent with this plan will
                      ensure that both public and private coastal use and development are appropriately
                      located and that adverse impacts on the coastal environment will be minimal.

                      Review criteria are predicated on the regional coastal policies and supporting strate-
                      gies. They have been organized into the following six tests to determine if a develop-
                      ment proposal conforms to the Regional Ocean Coastline Plan.
                      1 .  The proposal must meet coastal "dependency" and/or public benefit criteria
                      appropriate to the conservation/clevelopment area in which it is located (i.e., com-
                      munity growth, open use-limited development, or natural resource conservation).

                      2.   Uses may not degrade the quality of critical open space elements of the coastal
                      environment - wildlife habitat resources, recreational resources, and prime agricul-
                      tural resources. Wildlife habitat resources should be limited to educational, scientific
                      and recreational uses which have a high degree of compatibility and minimal impact.
                      Public recreational resources should be maintained in appropriate open space uses
                      for public use and enjoyment. Prime agricultural resources should be reserved for
                      appropriate agriculturally - dominated activities. They should not be committed
                      to development nor subjected to such development pressures that agricultural opera-
                      tions are taxed so heavily that they cannot survive.

                                                                               -5-

                                     3.   Hazards to public safety include earthquake-induced ground shaking, slope
                                     instability, shoreline erosion, steep slopes and flooding from storm runoff or seis-
                                     mic sea waves. Development should not be permitted which could reasonably be
                                     expected to result in significant hazards to persons or property, or where demands
                                     may be reasonably anticipated for major alterations to the environment as protec-
                                     tion against hazards.
                                     4.   Development must conform to all public service policies indicated above.
                                     Additionally, development which would result in levels of use in excess of existing
                                     highway capacity should not be permitted.
                                     5.   No development should prevent reasonable and appropriate public access from
                                     public roads to the tidelands. An upland public easement, at least 100 feet in width,
                                     should be dedicated to provide access along the shore. Such easements are to be in
                                     addition to setbacks necessary due to hazards.
                                     6.   Other review criteria are arranged in four categories: resource conservation,
                                     water resources, environmental quality and visual impact. Their objective is to
                                     minimize detrimental impacts on the coastal environment.

                                     ORGANIZATION, POWERS AND PROCEDURES

                                     The plan's implementation assumes that all levels of government will play a useful
                                     role. Their respective interests and capacities differ and corresponding responsibilities
                                     should vary accordingly.

                                     Three major organizational options are presented: a separate ocean coastline agency-,
                                     a coastline agency as part of a limited multi-purpose regional agency and a single
                                     consolidated regional government. The plan recommends the limited multi-purpose
                                     regional agency as the form which should be given the most immediate attention,
                                     and which can preserve ocean coastline interests effectively.

                                     New powers to coordinate, channel and tailor public facilities are included in the
                                     plan to cover the activities of the state agencies, special districts and local agency
                                     formation commissions most directly involved.

                                     A system of administrative review is proposed in the plan as the basic regulatory
                                     approach, also utilizing new forms of regional dedications and exactions. The speci-
                                     fic regulatory systern selected, after review of several alternatives, includes shared
                                     regulatory authority between the regional and local government and avoids the
                                     necessity for dual permits and redundant reviews.

                                  11. THE COASTAL ENVIRONMENT

                                  INTRODUCTION

                                  The San Francisco Bay regional coastal area covers 246 miles of ocean shoreline in
                                  Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, encompassing, most notably,
                                  Bodega and Tomales Bays and Bolinas Lagoon. The coastal area is not only of im-
                                  measurable significance as the place where natural forces are most dramatically dis-
                                  played, but is also where adverse effects of insensitive actions become as dramatically
                                  evident.

                                  This chapter is a brief summary of conditions beginning with a discussion of issues
                                  and problems accompanying man's occupation and use of the coastal area, and con-
                                  ClUding with a synopsis of physical environment factors.

                                  COASTAL CONFLICTS AND PROBLEMS

                                  Coastal Use Conflicts

                                  In the past, local planning and development efforts were predominantly urban-
                                  oriented. Land divisions and development have pre-empted prime agricultural lands,
                                  threatened unique natural habitats, and diminished the scenic and recreation values of
                                  the coastal area. Moreover, many developments have occurred on sites with severe
                                  public safety hazards, or are further straining already limited water resources. Agencies
                                  at other levels also acquired and developed beaches and other recreation areas,
                                  leased and granted tidelands, regulated the production of minerals and timber, pro-
                                  tected fish and wildlife, regulated commercial fisheries and allowed development to
                                  encroach on areas having high open space value and severe hazards to public safety -
                                  all separately and with little coordination to foster rational decisions.

                                  Often there is controversy over changing the existing open space character of the
                                  coastal resource. Many of the conflicts are clashes between development and public
                                  open space or public safety values, while others stem from preservationist stances of
                                  local residents who see their life style threatened by further growth.

                                  Some efforts have been made by local, State and federal agencies to purchase
                                  coastal resources for public use. However, this approach has not proven completely
                                  successful in ameliorating coastal problems. As public ownership expands, local
                                  property tax rolls decline, and the fiscal strain on local governments increases. More-
                                  over, many public management programs and public developments have been as in-
                                  sensitive to coastal surroundings, their neighbors and regional needs as has private
                                  development.

                                  Several underlying factors contribute to the current situation. The most important
                                  are the system of allocating resources,    the existing tax structure, fragmented
                                  governmental organization, and uncoordinated public expenditures on services and
                                  facilities.

                                                                       -8-

                            Public Access
                            Inaccessibility by the public to State-owned tidelands has become a matter of wide-
                            spread public concern. The public has a right to use State-owned tidelands for
                            certain uses, including transient recreation, but if members of the public cross
                            privately held uplands without permission, they are liable in civil trespass unless
                            they can show that an easement has been dedicated to the public under the common
                            law doctrine of implied dedication.
                            Easements created by implied dedication can provide a means of securing public
                            access, But although existing easements may not be cut off, recent legislation enables
                            coastal landowners to prevent future dedications from arising by simple publication
                            or posting procedures.
                            Hence, permitting development without reserving adequate public access to the shore-
                            line results in a loss difficult to remedy. State law requires the provision of reasonable
                            public access by a subdivision fronting upon the coastline, and some public access
                            may be secured in this manner. Unfortunately, the law does not apply to land used
                            for non-subdivision purposes.

                            Pressures for Development

                            Allocation of Coastal Resources
                            Most coastal agricultural and recreation activities occupy or desire lands highly
                            prized by developers who, through the existing "market" system, are able to bid the
                            prices above levels which open space users can afford.

                            The "market" is not purely private. It has been influenced and modified by govern-
                            ment in the public interest with the intent that it not be diverted from socially and
                            environmentally desirable ends. Government also enters the market directly by
                            acquiring title to lands and dictating their use, as in the case of parks,, beaches and
                            military reservations. Moreover, government has influence through investment in
                            public service facilities such as roads and utilities, which generate increases in land
                            value in the areas served.

                            Nevertheless, the market still tends to favor conversion of coastal lands from open
                            space uses to residential, industrial and commercial development. Several short-
                            comings remain:

                            1 . The present system does not place a proper price on many coastal resources,
                            and hence, their true value is not reflected.

                            2.   At present, there is little attempt to include all external costs in the accounting
                            systems of land and water users. As a result, the public bears costs that rightfully
                            should be paid by the resource user.

                            3.   The present system does not adequately reflect the true value of some public
                            uses of the coastal area. Hence the public's buying power in the market is diminished.

                            4.   The possibility of future scarcity of coastal lands, waters or other resources is
                            not adequately considered in the present market.

                                                                                -9-

                                     Tax Structure

                                     A key contributor to pressures for coastal land development is the existing tax struc-
                                     ture. Analysis of economic returns from open space uses makes clear that ad valorem
                                     property taxes based on the urbanized value for land, when the source for tax pay-
                                     ment is an open space use return, often force open space lands onto the market.
                                     This is true even when full use is made of California's Land Conservation (William-
                                     son) Act. Although the act's intent is to preserve open space lands for 10 or more
                                     years, its impact is not sufficiently reflected in market values to permit a contract-
                                     ing landowner to manage open space lands in the coastal area.

                                     Beyond the direct and immediate impact of property taxation, there is another,
                                     more subtle, tax impact, Even if the temptation to accept "market values" during
                                     one's lifetime can be withstood by an owner committed to open space uses, inheri-
                                     tance and estate tax appraisers have no comparable motivation. Inheritance and
                                     estate tax impacts often leave heirs with no alternative but to sell and realize the
                                     development potential of coastal open space lands.

                                     Public Facilities and Services

                                     Public investments in i nf rastrastructu re- services to private and public development-
                                     constitute perhaps the primary factor that has shaped, and will continue to shape,
                                     the pattern of land use in the coastal area. Large-scale development has a high
                                     degree of dependency upon these public investments, and particularly upon acces-
                                     sibility, water supply and sanitary sewer service. The availability, or even the pro-
                                     mise, of these services increases the potential uses of the land, resulting in land value
                                     increases that exclude many open space uses from the market. The provision
                                     of these services acts as a catalyst to development and the expansion of urban areas.
                                     Once development has begun in response to the availability of public services, it is
                                     accompanied by further pressure for expansion of public services, and followed by
                                     additional development - and the once-open nature of the coastal area recedes
                                     even further into the irretrievable past.

                                     Public investment is also important because it may be publicly controlled and directed.
                                     Public investments are committed on the basis of public policy - either express or
                                     implied, intentional or accidental - as to the type of development and coastal environ-
                                     ment desired. It is clear that such public investments can be used as positive instru-
                                     ments of achieving public policy on conservation and development goals of the coastal
                                     area.

                                     Major Governmental Influences

                                     Coastal resources have been manipulated for many years, usually on a single-purpose
                                     basis. Many governments or agencies have viewed the coast and its resources from an
                                     extremely narrow perspective. They have acquired and developed beaches and other
                                     recreation areas, leased and granted tidelands, regulated the production of minerals
                                     and timber, protected fish and wildlife, regulated commercial fisheries and

                                                                _10-

                      planned for development. Yet, this has often been done with little or no mutual
                      coordination, and largely without an established regional, State or national coastal
                      policy or planning framework assuring rational decisions in the broader public
                      interest.

                      Federal and State Agencies

                      At the beginning of this planning program, there was no planning and management
                      structure to allow for systematic review and coordination of the full range of current
                      and future interests in the region's coastal area. However, at the general election in
                      November, 1972, California voters enacted by initiative the California Coastal
                      Conservation Act of 1972. This created a State commission and six regional com-
                      missions. The latter has initial permit issuing power over proposed development with-
                      in a 1,000 yard strip back from the ocean, and a charge to make recommendations
                      to the State commission, which is to prepare the California Coastal Zone Qonserva-
                      tion Plan for submission to the Legislature by December 1, 1975. The regional
                      commissions must prepare their conclusions and recommendations, which shall
                      include areas that should be reserved for specific uses or within which specific uses
                      should be prohibited, to the State commission by April 1, 1975. The Act and con-
                      ,stituent authority are effective only until the 91st day following the adjournment of
                      the 1976 Regular Session of the Legislature; the date the law is repealed.
                      The coastal commissions join several other agencies having primary concern with
                      coastal area management. Several of these have regulatory powers, while the mission
                      of others is to investigate, manage or advise. Principal regulatory authority over sub-
                      merged lands and ungranted tidelands within California is vested in the State Lands
                      Commission. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, in administering legislation based
                      upon the federal navigational servitude over navigable waters, also exercises a signi-
                      ficant regulatory effect. The authority of cities and counties over such lands varies
                      depending upon whether they are in State, local or private ownership.
                      The State Lands Commission may permit the dredging and filling of State70wned
                      submerged lands and tidelands for improvement of navigation, reclamation, flood
                      control or as an incident to permitting the construction of groins, seawalls, bulk-
                      heads, etc. on such land. The Commission may issue a permit and collect rent for
                      allowing littoral owners to build groins, jetties and bulkheads on State-owned lands.
                      The Legislature has given the State Lands Commission broad powers to exchange
                      State-owned tidelands and submerged lands for publicly or privately owned lands.
                      The exchange must be in the best interests of the State for improvement of naviga-
                      tion, aid in reclamation, flood control or "to enhance the configuration of the
                      shoreline for the improvement of the water and upland." So long as the exchange
                      does not substantially interfere with the public trust and equal values are given and
                      received, the public agency or person receiving State lands may fill and improve
                      them, and upon resolution of the Commission, they become free of the public
                      trust.

                      The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for administering laws for protec-
                      tion and preservation of navigable waters and for construction, operation and main-
                      tenance necessary to the improvement of rivers, harbors and waterways for naviga-

                                     tion, flood control and related purposes. The Corps requires a permit for any dredging,
                                     filling or construction in navigable waters. Under current regulations, a permit is
                                     required for any such activity which extends below the line of mean higher high
                                     water. Corps permits are required regardless of whether other government agencies
                                     are exercising concurrent permit jurisdiction. Before granting a permit, the Corps
                                     requires that all appropriate local, regional and state permits be obtained.
                                     Other federal agencies with a direct interest in the coastal area include: the U. S.
                                     Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, National Park Service and Geological
                                     Survey - all in the U, S. Department of the Interior. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries
                                     and Wildlife is responsible for operation of national wildlife refuges, regulation of
                                     migratory bird hunting, management of fish and wildlife populations, and improve-
                                     ment and protection of a quality environment for fish and wildlife. The National
                                     Park Service operates national parks, monuments and recreation areas. The U. S.
                                     Geological Survey investigates, performs research, and classifies lands according to
                                     the resources present, and is responsible for enforcement of departmental regulations
                                     applicable to oil, gas, and mining leases, permits, licenses and contracts.
                                     Other involved State agencies include the Departments of Navigation and Ocean
                                     Development, Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game, all in the resources agency.
                                     The primary function of the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development is
                                     to coordinate State efforts in ocean-oriented activities. The Department is responsi-
                                     ble for beach erosion control, in cooperation with the U. S. Army Corps of Engin-
                                     eers, and for studying, recommending and funding local construction of boating
                                     facilities. The Department of Parks and Recreation acquires, develops and operates
                                     units of the State Park System, which includes parks, recreation areas, historic parks
                                     and monuments, beaches and reserves. The Department of Fish and Game is respon-
                                     sible for protection, preservation, propagation and enhancement of California's
                                     wildlife resources, enforces applicable laws and regulations, and may acquire lands
                                     in the interest of wildlife and recreation.

                                     Regional and Local Agencies

                                     As the designated regional clearing house, the Association of Bay Area Governments
                                     (ABAG) must review requests for federal and State funding of projects for confor-
                                     mance with federal law (including NEPA, discussed below) and with adopted regional
                                     plans, programs, and policies, pursuant to the directives of U. S. Office of Manage-
                                     ment and Budget Circular A-95. Coastal problems and issues have only begun to be
                                     effectively addressed at the regional level, and the A-95 review function does not
                                     pertain either to private development on private property or to projects to be fin-
                                     anced entirely by local government.
                                     The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) authorizes and directs all
                                     Federal agencies to utilize environmental and social information, along with economic
                                     and technical considerations in their decision-making. Furthermore, these agencies
                                     are required to prepare an environmental impact statement for any project that would
                                     have a significant effect upon the environment. Agencies are also required to consult
                                     with other agencies having applicable expertise or jurisdiction.

                                                                    -12-

                        The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 has been patterned after NEPA
                        and contains similar requirements. Under the Act as amended, an environmental
                        impact report must be prepared for all proposed public and private projects which
                        may halve a significant effect upon the environment. There is no requirement in
                        the legislation for its guidelines that the impact determinations be used in the deci-
                        sion-making of the reviewing agency proceeding with the project.

                        ABAG's review of such environmental impact statements should be an integral part
                        of the regional planning process, and should serve to identify impacts as they relate
                        to the plans, programs and policies of the region. However, as it presently operates,
                        impact statement review is not an assessment of the environmental impact on the
                        region, but rather is a process for identifying omissions and inadequacies in the state-
                        ments submitted. Review must be accomplished within a very short time period,
                        concurrently with review by all the single-purpose agencies with expertise in specific
                        functional areas. However, the ultimate impact of a project is determined by inter-
                        action of individual impacts, and ABAG has no effective opportunity to review
                        these. This situation effectively precludes a comprehensive over-view of a project
                        and its real impacts for conformance with regional plans, policies, and programs,
                        because the review process is limited to an isolated exercise of responding to the
                        statement as submitted.

                        The Metropolitan Transportation Commission was established by State law in 1970
                        to perform regional transportation planning for the nine-county Bay Area. The Com-
                        mission's powers extend beyond planning to approval of construction of any trans-
                        bay bridges and multi-county transit systems on exclusive rights-of-way. State high-
                        way construction is to conform to the Commission's plan except in cases of overriding
                        state interest. The Commission is empowered to allocate State aid for mass trans-
                        portation, and reviews and approves applications for federal aid for transportation
                        improvements of regional significance. The Commission's regional transportation
                        plan, adopted on June 27, 1973, includes consideration of the plans of State and
                        regional agencies for the Bay Area.

                        The Bay Area Sewage Services Agency (BASSA) is a nine-county public entity res-
                        ponsible for regional water quality management within the nine counties of the San
                        Francisco Bay Area. The Agency is empowered to perform the following functions:
                        prepare and adopt comprehensive water quality management plans for the San Fran-
                        cisco Bay Region,- conduct studies and research pertaining to regional water quality
                        management,, participate in development of water quality standards and require-
                        ments proposed by federal or state agencies,- review and approve applications for
                        financial assistance for water quality control facilities proposed by subregional
                        agencies,- and construct and operate waste water interception, treatment, disposal
                        and reclamation facilities by request or when necessary.
                        The Regional Water Quality Control Board is empowered to establish discharge re-
                        quirements and issue permits for all new and existing facilities which discharge waste
                        into waters of the region. The board exercises no control of structures per se.
                        Discharge requirements are required for major dredging operations. Certification
                        from the regional board is now required by the Army Corps of Engineers before

                                                                               -13-

                                     federal permits will be issued for projects involving fill of navigable waters. The Corps
                                     will not issue a permit unless the Regional Water Quality Control Board certifies
                                     that the proposed fill will not cause a violation of established water quality standards.

                                     In California, cities and counties retain major regulatory power over development
                                     review. The Coastal Conservation Act allows veto of such actions, but still requires
                                     local approval of a project.

                                     County boundaries normally extend seaward three miles from the coastline, City
                                     boundaries may be extended into adjacent tidelands and submerged lands, but
                                     such annexation must be approved by the State Lands Commission. The Commis-
                                     sion's determination of offshore annexation is conclusive. In other areas, of course,
                                     the approval of annexation, incorporation or creation or extension of special dis-
                                     tricts is the responsibility of the Local Agency Formation Commission, a group in
                                     each county representing both cities and the county.

                                     The most pervasive influences on the coastline at the local level are those generated
                                     by the myriad special districts in the coastal area. These districts provide the services
                                     and facilities which are the precursors of growth. Hence, review and control of these
                                     actions at an early time is one of the most important needs for improved coastal
                                     conservation.

                                     ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

                                     Introduction
                                     The uniqueness and value of the coastline may be comprehended by realizing that
                                     it is a single small line on a vast continent. Yet that small line, and its broader
                                     environs, imply different hydrologic systems and climatic conditions which justifies
                                     the intensive attention given the coastal area. This section briefly examines the en-
                                     vironmental factors which distinguish and unify the coast. A composite map of
                                     factors, as compiled from data available through April, 1972, is shown in Chapter
                                     I I I as Open Space Values and Constraints.
                                     The region's coastal area has been defined to encompass the immediate coastal en-
                                     vironment as well as those areas considered by the general public to be in the coastal
                                     area. This includes that portion of the four coastal counties of the nine-county region
                                     of the Association of Bay Area Governments which:

                                     1.   Is visible from the ocean coastline or the cliffs immediately above; or
                                     2.   Is visible from the major longitudinal coastal travel corridors; or
                                     3.   Exhibits accommodation of, or suitability for, marine and coastal wildlife or
                                     coasta I -dependent agricultural activities.

                                     Regional Coastal Resources

                                     The Ocean and Climate

                                     Coastal climatic conditions and marine habitat are intimately related to, and are

                                                                    -14-

                       primarily dependent upon, the 400 mile wide California Current that moves slowly
                       southeastward along the region's shore. During the spring and summer, the region's
                       coastal waters are subject to upwelling, a drawing to the surface of a corridor of
                       nutrient-rich colder waters from as deep as 600 feet in a broad area adjacent to shore.
                       In the autumn, upwelling ceases and the relatively warm Davidson Current from the
                       south partially dissipates the relatively colder waters inshore.
                       Experiencing generally westerly to northwesterly winds throughout most of the year,
                       the region's coastal area has a maritime cl i mate- relatively warm and wet winters,
                       cool, rainless but foggy summers, small daily and seasonal temperature ranges, and
                       high relative humidities. Because of marine influence, lines of equal temperature
                       are oriented generally parallel to the coast instead of to the lines of latitude. Transi-
                       tion from this marine-dominated climate to the greater climatic extremes inland
                       is influenced mostly by topography,

                       Agricultural Resources

                       The soils and the marine-dominated climate of the central California coastal area
                       provide an extremely valuable agricultural opportunity, which makes possible the
                       production of several crops highly dependent on such conditions. These include
                       artichokes, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower and cut flowers. The region's best
                       and most extensive production area for these crops is in coastal San Mateo County,
                       but the two northern coastal counties have several small suitable areas in narrow
                       stream valleys as well.

                       In San Mateo County, the most suitable lands (with soils of the Tunitas-Lockwood
                       and Watsonville-Elkhorn soil associations and located within the maritime plant-
                       climate zone) are generally within 11/2miles of the shore and occupy approximately
                       75% of all such lands between Point Montara and Point Ano Nuevo.

                       Lands suitable for grazing are abundant and are of special interest due to the impor-
                       tance of grazing and the threat to its survival posed by present tax policies. North
                       of the Russian River, in Sonoma County, such lands are in a band 1/2 to % mile wide,
                       parallel to the shore, with small exceptions due to adverse vegetation conditions.
                       South of the Russian River, this zone widens considerably to include virtually all
                       the coastal area as far south as Bolinas, interrupted only occasionally by forested
                       canyons, areas of brush and stream valleys. Between Bolinas in Marin County and
                       Point Montara in San Mateo County, there are very few areas with conditions suit-
                       able for grazing. In San Mateo County, such lands include all areas suitable for coastal
                       dependent crop production, plus i broad zone (with frequent interruptions due to
                       lack of suitable vegetation) just inland of that area from the City of Half Moon Bay
                       to Point Ano Nuevo.

                       Recreation Resources and Amenities

                       Recreation resources of the region's coastal area provide outstanding leisure oppor-
                       tunities for residents and visitors alike, and are a major aspect of the regional quality
                       of life. Equally significant, coastal recreation amenities support the economic and
                       environmental stability of the coastal area, and, indirectly, the entire region. The

                                                                                   -15-

                                    variety of recreational experiences available is considerable.

                                    Areas identified by various federal, State, and local agencies, and areas having
                                    outstanding scenic value and streams suitable for boating and fishing are con-
                                    sidered to be of significant regional recreational value. Existing and potential re-,
                                    creational resources include parks, beaches, campgrounds, historic areas, impor-
                                    ta nt waterways a nd scen ic a men i ty areas.

                                    Marine and Coastal Wildlife Habitat

                                    Fish and wildlife populations exist wherever the composite of environmental condi-
                                    tions is suitable. Terrestrial habitat areas are a varying mixture of grasses, trees and
                                    shrubs of many species and in many combinations that distinguish one community
                                    from another. They consist of a unique combination of plant and animal life, and
                                    range from deep redwood forests to the sparse vegetation on coastal sand dunes. Often
                                    these habitats are found only near the coast, or have certain characteristics that set
                                    them apart from similar inland areas.

                                    Aquatic habitats combine fresh and salt water with varying types of bottom condi-
                                    tions - mud, sand and rock - into the coastal interticlal and subticlal areas. They
                                    include fresh and salt water marshes, mudflats, estuaries and sandy and rocky inter-
                                    tidal and nearshore areas. These are unique sorts of environments and each has a very
                                    important role in a portion of the life cycle of almost every marine organism.

                                    Between Gualala and Fort Ross the coastal area is predominantly in open grasslands
                                    backed by maritime pine forest. South of Fort Ross the forests thin considerably,
                                    and north coast grasslands occupy the more exposed areas with smal I wooded areas
                                    in the more protected canyons. These grasslands continue with varying degrees of
                                    tree cover along the east side of Tomales Bay to south of Point Reyes Station before
                                    the wooded character again begins to dominate. Coastal and marine birds nest in
                                    large numbers in selected locations along this rugged coast, and the intertidal and
                                    nearshore subtidal areas abound with marine life.

                                    Within this area, there are a number of important freshwater and estuarine habitats,
                                    most notably Russian River, Bodega Bay, Estero Americano, Estero cle San Antonio,
                                    and Tomailes Bay. The Russian River supports a wide variety of wildlife in the ripa-
                                    rian habitats along its banks, and is an important salmon and steelhead spawning
                                    stream.

                                    Coastal strand communities are found on the dunes and sand spit to the north and
                                    south, respectively, of Bodega Bay. The Bay itself supports a wide variety of birds,
                                    shell fish and other marine life that are dependent on its wetland habitats.

                                    The Estero Americano and the Estero de San Antonio both contain high quality
                                    estuarine and coastal marsh habitats, and are extremely important to resident and
                                    migratory bird populations. They are surrounded by rolling grasslands with minor
                                    areas of shrubs and occasional trees. Tornales Bay is another area of high marine
                                    and coastal wildlife habitat value. It varies from true marine conditions at its mouth
                                    to a high quality estuary at its southern extremity, and supports large numbers of
                                    shell fish, including commercial oyster operations. The shore areas of the Bay are

                                                                 -16-

                     diverse in their characteristics, and include coastal strand communities as well as
                     coastal marshes and mudflats of high habitat value to shellfish and shorebirds.
                     To the west and south of Tomales Bay is the Point Reyes Peninsula, which contains
                     several different types of coastal and marine habitats, including the only extensive
                     area of coastal sagebrush north of the Golden Gate. The Olema Valley represents a
                     mixture of north coast grasslands interspersed with large areas of mixed evergreen
                     forest below stands of coast redwoods in high and more sheltered areas.
                     Adjacent to the village of Bolinas are two habitats of outstanding value to the region:
                     Duxbury Reef and Bolinas Lagoon. Duxbury Reef is the largest shale reef in North
                     America, and its intertidal area abounds with marine life. Bolinas Lagoon is a unique
                     wetland habitat of great significance to resident and migratory waterfowl and shore-
                     birds.

                     A coastal strand community extends from the sandspit fronting Bolinas Lagoon to
                     the south end of Stinson Beach, and contains large woody shrubs as wel I as dune
                     grasses. Above the immediate shore areas from the area of Stinson Beach to the Golden
                     Gate is coastal sagebrush, which grades into grassland, interrupted less frequently by
                     redwoods and more by coastal scrub. South of Stinson Beach the shore areas are
                     generally very rocky, and are often used by cormorants, gulls and other marine birds
                     as nesting areas.

                     South of the Golden Gate, the City and County of San Francisco is, for the most
                     part, an urban environment. Most of the vegetation was placed there by man in the
                     last 100 years, including that in most of the Presidio and al I of Golden Gate Park.

                     The shore areas north and east of San Francisco's Point Lobos abound with marine
                     life, and the rocks are frequented by sea lions and sea birds, At the southern margin
                     of San Francisco are some areas of coastal strand, with dune grasses and minor
                     woody vegetation,- in the more protected areas are patches of forest, including pine,
                     planted hardwoods and, occasionally, coast redwoods.

                     A significant portion of the San Mateo County coast is devoted to coastal-dependent
                     agriculture and grazing. The remaining terrestrial wildlife habitat of San Mateo County
                     is predominanly a coastal sagebrush community. However, there are significant
                     riparian communities along most of the intermittent and all the perennial streams
                     of the county's coastal area. Dense wooded areas of mixed hardwoods and woody
                     shrubs occupy these places of more certain water supply and less exposure to wind.
                     The beaches are generally backed by bluffs or cliffs, and often there are rocky
                     intertidal areas of critical habitat value to marine life. Extending south from
                     Montara Lighthouse to beyond Pillar Point is a large reef which supports a great
                     variety of marine organisms. Inside Pillar Point Harbor is another, different type of
                     habitat - a small wetland area of importance to many birds and the life cycles of
                     many marine organisms.

                     There are mouths of several streams that have very small coastal marshes behind the
                     beach, but the only major estuary and wetland habitat is at Pescadero Creek. At the
                     southern extremity of the region is the Point Ano Nuevo State Reserve, whose rocky

                                                                           -17-

                                 shores provide habitat for sea lions, seals, sea birds and intertidal and subticlal marine
                                 life. To the immediate north of this is an extensive dune formation having a unique
                                 coastal strand community of wildflowers, dune grasses and woody shrubs; to the
                                 east and south, coastal pine forest extends almost to the shore.

                                 Hazards to Public Safety

                                 Introduction

                                 Seismic, landslide, cliff retreat and tsunami hazards, as well as steepness of slope,
                                 serve to impose limitations on coastal development. Areas where significant impact
                                 upon development from one or more of these hazards is likely are considered to have
                                 severe hazards to public safety. However, it is only by careful investigation of specific
                                 areas and sites that the location, extent and intensity of such hazards may be identi-
                                 fied precisely. Thus, because of the scale involved, "severe public safety hazards"
                                 indicated on the Open Space Values and Constraints map in Chapter I I I should be
                                 considered only as a schematic regional representation and an "alert" to such condi-
                                 tions. Due to limitations of existing data, there also may be small areas of severe
                                 hazard within an area shown as not having such limitations, and conversely some
                                 areas included may be safe.

                                 Earth Stability

                                 The region's coastal area is in a dynamic geologic setting. It is a part of the Coast
                                 Range, a series of low mountains and intervening valleys, roughly parallel to the
                                 coast. While mountains here are often rising, they are being eroded and carried by
                                 streams to fill the valleys - which themselves are often sinking. While some faults
                                 are creeping slowly, the San Andreas Fault may be building toward another in a
                                 continuing series of earthquakes. Rugged mountains slope abruptly to the sea, small
                                 alluvial plains fill the bottoms of many stream valleys and structural sags, and ancient
                                 marine terraces are found many tens of feet above the present sea level. All of these
                                 features provide substantial evidence of the slow but continual geologic forces and
                                 erosional processes that are still shaping this region's coastal area today. These, in
                                 combination with coastal climatic conditions, have produced the variety of soil and
                                 foundation conditions that can often be uniquely productive, yet severely hazardous
                                 to public safety.
                                 One of the unifying physical features of the region's coastal area is the San Andreas
                                 Fault and its related fault systems - widely known for the earthquakes experienced
                                 throughout its length. It roughly parallels the coast, and traverses the shoreline in
                                 each of the counties except San Francisco. Faulting itself directly affects only a
                                 narrow band of ground, but the secondary effects of earthquakes, such as landslides
                                 and amplified ground motion in alluvial deposits, are often more damaging than a
                                 surface rupture. Damage from either direct shock, fault movement or seismic res-
                                 ponse of susceptible earth materials is thus an ever-present danger to development of
                                 the coastal area.

                                 Waves can have pronounced erosional effects as they dissipate their energy against the
                                 beaches and sea cliffs of the coastal area. The geologic formations which are exposed

                        along the shore vary from highly stable to highly erodible. Beach sands come princi-
                        pally from streams which discharge sediments eroded from inland hillsides and moun-
                        tains. The oblique angle of wave incidence on the shore creates a low-velocity long-
                        shore current - the littoral drift - which transports beach materials slowly along the
                        shore within the zone of wave turbulence. Beaches are thus in continual motion,
                        and may be visualized as a "river of sand" transported along the shore. Damming
                        of streams and rivers interrupts the replacement of beach sands, while structures
                        placed in the longshore current can interfere with the littoral drift and cause
                        accretion "upstream" and severe erosion "downstream." Any significant inter-
                        ference with the system removes the protective barrier of beach sands from the
                        base of the sea cliffs - many of which are highly erodible - baring them to the
                        full erosional forces of the sea, and accelerating the erosional process.

                        Flood Hazard

                        I n addition to the threat to the several f lood plains f rom storm water f looding, al I
                        lowlying areas of the region's coastal area are subject to tsunami, or seismic sea
                        wave, hazard. Tsunamis, often incorrectly called tidal waves since they are not re-
                        iated to tidal action, are long-period waves, usually caused by underwater land-
                        slides, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. While they are only one or two feet high
                        in the open sea, they may increase to tens of feet as they approach the shore, and
                        cause inundation and damage to low lying coastal areas.

                                     III. REGIONAL COASTAL OBJECTIVES
                                     AND POLICIES

                                     INTRODUCTION

                                     The Ocean Coastline Plan seeks to satisfy the following major coastal goal:

                                     To promote the conservation of the natural resources of the coastal area, especially
                                     those which are rare or unique to the coastal environment, while encouraging
                                     utilization of coastal lands and waters to benefit present and future populations.

                                     1-he regional coastal policies are intended to influence decision-makers in actions
                                     which may have an effect on the coastal area. Major policies deal with environ-
                                     mental quality, public enjoyment, open space, conservation and development.
                                     Following these is a description of the locational implications of the regional coastal
                                     policies. These include recommendations to ensure appropriate uses of the various
                                     coastal resources.

                                     OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES

                                     Environmental Quality

                                     Ob'jective: Assure high quality of air, water, land and amenity resources throughout
                                     the coastal area.

                                     Most any activity or development may have, at the same time, both positive and
                                     negative effects on the quality of the environment. Hence, it is essential that signifi-
                                     cant environmental impacts be considered in planning and development processes.
                                     No use of any coastal resource should be allowed to diminish the quality of the
                                     coastal environment. No major alteration of the coastal landscape should be allowed.
                                     Thus, location of land uses and population settlement and density patterns must be
                                     carefully considered.

                                     Policies

                                     1.   Enforcement of high standards for the emission of air pollutants shall be promoted
                                     to ensure air quality and prevent its deterioration.

                                     2.   Where local climatic and topographic factors are conducive to airshed pollutant
                                     concentration, the location and arrangement of land uses and population density,
                                     and establishment of emission performance criteria shall reflect such conditions to
                                     the maximum exte   nt possible.

                                     3.   Solid and liquid waste discharge and disposal shall be regulated to the extent that
                                     contamination of water resources and damage to the aquatic environment is minimal.

                                     4.   Use and discharge of chemical agents, particularly including pesticides and heavy
                                     metals, which concentrate in the food chain and interrupt or destroy the primary bio-
                                     logical network or threaten specie survival shall be prohibited or rigorously controlled.

                                                                       -20-

                          5.    Interbasin transfers of water res ources which will result in significant adverse
                          impact on water regimen stability and water quality shall be discouraged..
                          6.    Development shall be regulated with the intent that productive coastal marine
                          and wildlife habitats, such as marshes, mudflats, lagoons, estuaries, lakes, bays,
                          riparian habitats and anadromous fish waterways, shall not be degraded.
                          7.    The configuration of the coastal landforms shall, to the maximum extent
                          practicable, be maintained to preserve hydrologic and scenic values. Use of coastal
                          resources shall not be allowed which requires significant alteration of the coastal
                          landscape or seascape.

                          8.    Development in the immediate vicinity of the shoreline, both on land and off-
                          shore, and in rural and wilderness areas shall be located, sited and designed to carefully
                          fit the land and water so that its presence is subordinated and the pre-existing character
                          of the coastal area is maintained to the maximum extent practicable.

                          9.    Public views from major travel corridors to both the shoreline and adjoining
                          upland areas should be protected and enhanced, and development shall not be
                          allowed to significantly obscure, detract from or negatively affect the quality of
                          these views.

                          Public Eniovment

                          Objective: Maximize opportunity for human enjoyment of the coastal area by provi-
                          sion of appropriate forms of public and private transportation, shoreline access, and
                          a coastal trail system.

                          Policies

                          1 .   An attractive public transportation alternative to the private automobile should
                          be devised for early implementation.
                          2.    Supplementary public recreational access via public transit should be provided
                          for all significant increases in recreational facilities.

                          3.    A suitable trail network should be devised for use by a broad range of users,
                          providing for use of existing trail systems, continuity, ease of access, safety from
                          hazards, sound relationships to existing and proposed natural resource conservation
                          areas, protection of privacy and opportunity for educational values.

                          4.    Frequent and easy public access should be provided laterally from major
                          travel corridors to the ocean shoreline.

                          Open Space

                          Objective: Retain and enhance the dominant open space character of the coastal
                          area through maintenance in permanent open space of large and contiguous land
                          and water areas.

                                                                  -21-

                               The major public benefits of the coastal area are derived from its open character
                               and the variety of corresponding amenities. An open space use - an area generally
                               free from structural development - may serve one or many purposes. For instance,
                               it may serve as a wildlife habitat, a resource to assure continued water supply, space for
                               agricultural and recreational activities, a form and identity - giving feature for
                               urban places, and may provide recreational diversion and aesthetic experiences. Open
                               space also improves the level of @ublic health by enhancing one of the region's most
                               important attributes: environmental diversity. Thus, it is essential to retain coastal
                               areas of regional open space value and areas containing severe hazards to public
                               safety in appropriate open space uses.

                               Policies

                               1 .  The coastal area should remain predominantly in large and contiguous open
                               space areas.

                               2.   The overall pattern of the open space system shall reflect the integration of
                               various open space uses and seek to promote a recognizable continuity among those
                               uses.

                               3.   Coastal areas containing fragile, unique, rare, or endangered ecological, scienti-
                               fic and educational values shall be preserved.

                               4.   To ensure continuance of public water resources, woodland watersheds, water
                               recharge areas, areas whose development would not allow water regimen stabiliza-
                               tion through conservation means, and other areas having a direct bearing on the
                               quality of water resources, shall be maintained in open space uses.

                               5.   Areas of high maricultural value shall be maintained in open space uses.

                               6.   High value agriculture areas, including lands that may be utilized for the growing
                               of coastal speciality crops, areas of established agricultural production.and areas
                               having soils of good agricultural capability, maritime climatic influences and of
                               sufficient size to be farmed, shall be retained in agricultural use.

                               7.   Lands with potential for grazing use shall be actively encouraged to remain in
                               open space uses.

                               8.   Land and water recreational resources of the coastal area shall be evaluated to
                               determine their most appropriate use, acquired for public use and managed effectively
                               to prevent their degradation.

                               9.   Open space shall be used to protect and enhance local community character
                               and identity and to guide the physical shape and direction of development.

                               10. Important public views, unique natural features, landmarks, archeological and
                               historic sites and other scenic and cultural assets of the coastal area shall be retained
                               in open space uses.

                               11. Public access to areas of high coastal amenity shall be secured through regula-
                               tion or acquisition, as appropriate.

                                                                -22-

                       12. Coastal areas subject to severe environmental hazards, especially flood-prone and
                       landslide - prone areas, high seismic risk areas, steep slopes or areas subject to cliff
                       erosion or tsunami inundation, are not appropriate for development and shall be
                       maintained in open space uses.
                       13. Areas whose development would pose a severe hazard to persons or property
                       outside the proposed development are not appropriate for development, and shall  be
                       maintained in open space uses.

                       Conservation

                       Objective: Conserve water, land, energy, plant nutrients and living resources.
                       Conservation policies serve to identify resources critical to the coastal environment,
                       and suggest practices essential to their maintenance. Limited coastal resources must
                       be conserved and protected to the maximum extent possible, so that the region may
                       continue to realize their substantial interrelated economic, social and environmental
                       benefits. This implies the need for plan-based management to prevent exploitation,
                       neglect or elimination.

                       Pol icies

                       1 . Stability of the aquatic environment shall be sought through promotion of care-
                       ful management of vegetative cover, surface water runoff patterns, ground water
                       recharge and erosion and sedimentation processes.

                       2.  Water resources conservation shall be promoted through regulation, allocation
                       and encouragement for reuse.
                       3.  Withdrawals from ground water basins shall be regulated so as to maintain a
                       continuing supply.

                       4.  The discharge of organic wastes and plant nutrients shall be regulated to avoid
                       harm to the aquatic environment.

                       5.  Region-wide efforts to minimize energy consumption shall be encouraged to
                       conserve energy resources and reduce the impact of energy utilization on coastal air,
                       land, water and living resources.
                       6.  Watersheds whose streams are used for fish spawning grounds and nurseries shall
                       be managed to maintain the flow of fresh water necessary to their maintenance for
                       these purposes.

                       7.  Opportunities and practices for resource renewal and reuse of coastal resources
                       shall be actively encouraged.

                       Development

                       Objective: Accommodate limited development in the coastal area within the capacity
                       of natural resources to sustain compatible use.

                                                                                         -23-

                                          A major concern is the impact generated or fostered by development. Open space
                                          values should not be diminished simply because they happen to occur in or near a
                                          developing area. Development must be compatible with the coastal environment
                                          and must be directed to appropriate existing Or potential settlement areas. Some
                                          areas in which development may be allowed should be reserved for activities that
                                          both require a coastal site and maximize benefits arising from such a location.
                                          All users of coastal resources should respect the coastal setting and conserve its
                                          scarce resources, whether they build, farm, cut, fish, extract or merely walk through
                                          the coastal area. A strong coastal relationship must be shown in the actual design
                                          and siting of developments in the coastal area.

                                          Policies

                                          1.    The maximum practicable compatible multiple use of coastal resources shall be
                                          sought to promote conservation of resources and increase habitat values, public safety,
                                          recreational opportunities, scenic amenities and public enjoyment of the coastal
                                          environment.

                                          2.    Misuse, excessive intensity of use, waste and degradation resulting from utilization
                                          of a coastal resource shall be discouraged.

                                          3.    Urban development shal I be prohibited from areas with major regional coastal
                                          open  space resource values.

                                          4.    Urban uses should strengthen the desired pattern of regional development and
                                          shall be directed to appropriate existing settlement areas.

                                          5,    In areas to which urban uses are directed, locations having significant coastal
                                          amenity shall be reserved for activities or facilities that both require such amenities
                                          and maximize public benefits.

                                          6.    The location and timing of public and quasi-public expenditures in utilities,
                                          facilities and services shall be consistent with regional coastal policy.

                                          7.    Development within the coastal area shall be regulated with the intent to mini-
                                          mize public expenditures in facilities and services, to maintain maximum flexibility
                                          for future decisions and to minimize conversion of coastal area lands and waters
                                          from open space to intensive development uses.

                                          LOCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS: CONSERVATION/DEVELOPMENT AREAS

                                          An analysis of coastal resources has led to the derivation of three categories of
                                          coastal use suitability-the Conservation/Development Policy designations. At a re-
                                          gional scale, these are the specific locational implications of the regional coastal
                                          policies, which recommlend that:

                                          The coastal area should remain predominantly in large and contiguous open space use
                                          areas.

                                                                      -24-

                         Areas possessing open space resources of significant regional value should be reserved
                         for compatible open space uses.

                         Intensive coastal development should be directed to areas best able to accommodate
                         such activities.

                         Based upon the premises of the regional coastal policies-that coastal open space
                         values must be retained, and that only development which recognizes, and is com-
                         patible with, such values should be permitted-and upon the recommendations of the
                         policies themselves, the following conservation/development areas are derived.

                         Natural Resource Conservation areas, which have open space resource values of
                         regional significance, and which should be reserved for compatible open space uses.

                         Open Use - Limited Development areas, which should remain predominantly in open
                         space, but within which limited development which conforms to the regional coastal
                         policies may occur.

                         Community Growth areas, to which relatively intensive coastal use and development
                         should be directed.

                         The boundaries of areas designated on the Conservation/Development Policy map
                         are accurate only within the constraints of data availability and accuracy and the
                         mapping scale. As more precise information becomes available, their general extent
                         may be altered in the same manner provided for revision of the Regional Plan, while
                         precise area boundaries may be determined by comparing environmental information
                         with the definitions of the various areas below.

                         Local plans are an appropriate vehicle for the establishment of precise boundaries and
                         other refinements of these policy implications. Where local governments prepare and
                         adopt plans which conform to the intent of the regional coastal policies and their
                         implications, such plans will amplify and detail this plan,

                         CommunitV Growth

                         Community growth areas include both the presently -developed portions and im-
                         mediate environs of permanent population settlement areas, of whatever size, as
                         indicated on the Corservation/Development Policy map. These: 1) have an identi-
                         fiable, balanced and continuing community character; 2) include a center which
                         provides services for a larger surrounding area; 3) have adequate levels of accessibility
                         and public services or those which may readily be expanded; 4) if fully developed,
                         could contain controlled growth compatible with other regional and local growth
                         policies; 5) do not conflict significantly with identified regional open space resource
                         values or severe hazards in other than presently - developed areas; and 6) are areas to
                         which cuastal development should be directed, in lieu of other portions of the coastal
                         area.

                         This designation does not imply that open space values within these areas must be
                         ignored. Any development permitted within a community growth area must comple-
                         ment, and not consume, those resources. Decisions regarding urbanization or deve-

                                                                                  -25-

                                       lopment of any area must also reflect numerous other factors, including the presence
                                       of hazards to public safety, potential for other, more appropriate uses, timing and
                                       compatibility of development and public services, city and county plans, local recrea-
                                       tion values, social implication and a host of additional considerations that must
                                       accompany any development decision.

                                       In the immediate shoreline portion of a community growth area, only those land
                                       or water uses included within a proposed development are appropriate which: 1
                                       clearly demonstrate either substantial coastal economic dependency upon the
                                       location proposed or significant public benefit; and 2) are without reasonable alter-
                                       native sites outside the immediate shoreline area.

                                       Outside the immediate shoreline portion of a community growth area, only those
                                       land or water uses included within a proposed development which are typically
                                       coastal-related or oriented to the specific local community are appropriate.

                                       Open Use - Limited Development

                                       Open use-limited development areas are devoid of identified regional open space
                                       resources and include areas of dispersed and limited development as well as areas
                                       which are predominantly vacant or in various open space uses. Intensive develop-
                                       ment or in-filling of these areas would generate inappropriate development pressures
                                       or require major expansion of highways or public services. These areas should con-
                                       tinue to have a predominantly open character, although limited development which
                                       respects coastal character, resources and hazards, and either exhibits coastal depen-
                                       dency or provides a significant public benefit, may be permitted.

                                       Areas generally threatened with severe hazards to public safety are known to occur
                                       in open use-limited development areas. These are areas where significant problems
                                       of slope and slope stability, response of earth materials to seismic disturbance, or
                                       flood or seismic sea wave hazard are anticipated and where public harm may be
                                       prevented through use of appropriate I imitations on structural development.

                                       In the immediate shoreline portion of an open use - limited development area, only
                                       those land or water uses included within a proposed development are appropriate
                                       which: 1) dearly demonstrate either substantial economic dependency upon the lo-
                                       cation proposed or significant public benefit through maintenance of agricultural,
                                       grazing, pasture or open recreation uses only; 2) are without reasonable alternative
                                       sites outside the immediate shoreline area; and 3) are compatible with both open
                                       space resource retention and the severe hazards to public safety often associated
                                       with these areas.

                                       Outside the immediate shoreline of an open use - limited development area, only
                                       those land or water uses included within a proposed development are appropriate
                                       which: 1 ) clearly demonstrate either substantial economic dependency upon the
                                       location proposed or significant public benefit; and 2) are compatible with both
                                       open space resource retention and the severe hazards to public safety often associated
                                       with these areas.

                                                                       -26-

                         Natural Resource Conservation

                         Natural resource conservation designations inCILUJO all areas having identified regional
                         open space values, specifically: I ) marine and coijslal wildlife habitats; 2) agricultural
                         resources; and 3) public recreational resources. These are areas appropriate for open
                         space uses only which will provide for retention of identified regional open space
                         resource values.

                         Areas generally threatened with severe hazards to public safety are known to occur in
                         natural resource conservation areas. These are areas where significant problems of
                         slope and slope stability, response of earth materials to seismic disturbance or flood
                         or seismic sea wave hazard are anticipated, and where public harm may be prevented
                         through use of appropriate limitations on structural development.
                         In the immediate shoreline portion of a natural resource conservation area, only those
                         land or water uses included within a pro   'posed development are appropriate which:
                         I ) clearly demonstrate both substantial economic dependency upon the location pro-
                         posed and significant public benefit,- 2) are without reasonable alternative sites outside
                         both the immediate shoreline area and the natural resource conservation area; 3) are
                         compatible with the severe hazards to public safety often associated with these areas;
                         and 4) will provide for retention of identified regional open space resources.

                         Outside the immediate shoreline portion of a natural resource conservation area, only
                         those land or water uses included within a proposed development are appropriate
                         which: 1) clearly demonstrate both substantial economic dependency upon the loca-
                         tion proposed and significant public benefit; 2) are without reasonable alternative
                         sites outside the natural resource conservation area; 3) are compatible with the severe
                         hazards     associated with these areas; and 4) wi I I provide for the retention of identi-
                         fied regional open space resources.

                         Determinants

                         Economic Dependency

                         "Economic dependency" is an expression of the functional dependency of a use or
                         activity on coastal area resources. Some uses are so economically dependent on the
                         water, climate, geology, marine life, etc., of the coastal area that they can not reason-
                         ably locate elsewhere. Therefore, it is important to ensure that such uses receive
                         priority in the competition for scarce coastal lands and waters, and further, that
                         coastal areas be reserved and maintained for such dependent uses.

                         Economic dependency can be evidenced in one of two ways. The first avenue is to
                         demonstrate the absence of necessary resources at any inland location. The second
                         method would be to show that in order tD re      'nlicate the necessary resource at an
                         inland location, the cost incurred would be more than twice the investment of a
                         coastal location.

                         This second method recognizes a useful index of economic dependency to be "oppor-
                         tunity cost" - in this instance the relation between the construction and operation of
                         a land or water use and the coastal resources which it utilizes. Opportunity cost is the

                                                                            -27-

                                sum of: I ) the extra investment needed to create the particular resources essential to
                                the land or water use outside the coastal area; and 2) the extra operating costs asso-
                                ciated with a non-coastal area location, such as transportation differentials or opera-
                                tion of equipment. Using this method, a use is considered dependent on the resources
                                of the coastal area if exclusion from the area would at least double its opportunity
                                costs. Differences in land costs or rents may not be included in opportunity cost calcu-
                                lations, It must be clearly demonstrated that costs on a non-coastal area site would
                                be significantly in excess (greater than 200%) of those on a coastal area site, assuming
                                equal land costs or rents in both coastal and non-coastal area locations.

                                Local supply and demand conditions and changing technological problems of particu-
                                lar users dictate that proposed uses not be firmly classified in advance as to degree of
                                dependency, but that each application be considered on its own merits.

                                Examples of uses which, at the current level of technology, evidence significant
                                economic dependency on the coastal area are mariculture and marine fisheries,
                                marine and coastal-oriented public and commercial recreation, artichoke production,
                                and deep water ports. These rely on a coastal resource which cannot be found out-
                                side the coastal area or which cannot be replicated at less than twice the coastal in-
                                vestment. For example, since marine fisheries cannot exist without the sea, their
                                opportunity cost is infinite. While ports can be located inland, the extra investment
                                and operating costs of creating and maintaining a channel are enormous, easily double
                                the costs of developing a port on existing deep water, It is very doubtful today
                                whether construction and maintenance of a ship canal of the size and length serving
                                Stockton and Sacramento could ever be economically viable if the real costs of
                                amortization and maintenance were charged to users as a toll. Marine recreation also
                                may be considered a dependent use if it is assumed that marine recreational oppor-
                                tunities cannot be substituted by other types of recreation such as mountain or
                                desert. Finally, artichoke production also falls into this category since, if grown inland,
                                air conditioned greenhouses would be necessary, requiring an investment of perhaps
                                50 times that necessary in the coastal area.

                                Public Benefit

                                Public benefit is considered to occur when a proposed land or water use, activity, or
                                facility will result in direct and substantial general public use or foster substantial
                                public betterment in the form of permanent retention of large and contiguous
                                open space areas.

                                Substantial public benefit may be demonstrated by either of the following:

                                1.    Development which maintains open space as the principal and visually predomi-
                                nant use, namely:

                                a.    Agricultural and grazing and pasture uses; or
                                b.    Public and commercial recreation uses in which landscape alteration occurs on
                                less than 2% of the gross land area having less than 40% slope.

                                2.    Development whose primary intent is not open space, but whose sitinq is such
                                that open space preservation is an important permanent result, and which:

                                                                -28-

                      a.   Provides for preservation of significant coastal resource areas in permanent
                      and publicly-accessible open space in conformance with the environmental impact
                      concerns expressed in the regional coastal policies, Such resources include dominant
                      landforms and landmarks, beaches and important marine and aquatic areas, such as
                      marshes, mudflats, lagoons, estuaries, lakes and bays; and

                      b.   Provides the following:
                      - for development of existing parcels of less than 10 acres: not more than 1%
                      coverage (landscape alteration) of the gross parcel area of less than 40% slope, or
                      2,500 square feet, whichever is greater,-
                      - for development of existing parcels of 10 acres or more but less than 50 acres:
                      not more than 3% coverage (landscape alteration) of the gross parcel area of less
                      than 40% slope, and at least 20% of the development devoted to tourist - oriented,
                      recreational or transient accommodations and facilities;
                      - for development of existing parcels of at least 50 acres but less than 200 acres: not
                      more than 7% coverage (landscape alteration) of the gross parcel area of less than
                      40% slope and at least 40% of the development devoted to tourist - oriented,
                      recreational, or transient accommodations and facilities.

                      - for development of existing parcels of at least 200 acres: not more than 10% coverage
                      (landscape alteration) of the gross parcel area of less than 40% slope, and at least 60%
                      of the development devoted to tourist-oriented, recreational, or transient accommodations
                      and facilities.

                      These maximum coverage requirements may be altered due to major site or location-
                      al constraints if determined to be in the public interest. Public facilities or utilities
                      whose construction is consistent with an enunciated public policy and which meets
                      an overriding public need shall be exempt from the requirements to provide tourist-
                                                                                            ,; Ir
                      oriented, recreational, or transient accommodations and facilities. In i h instances,
                      thp maximum coveraqe rpquirements may be relaxed to twice the amounts specified
                      only when such coverage is essential to meet the public need.

                      immediate Shoreline
                      While it would be simplest to establish an arbitrary distance inland as the boundary of
                      the immediate shoreline, such an action would fail to respond to the existing character
                      of the natural and man-made coastal environment. In response to this environment,
                      the immediate shoreline is defined as:
                      All lands and waters extending inland at least 300 feet from the mean high tide line
                      or to the landward extent of marine and coastal wildlife habitat and/or natural areas
                      to a maximum of the 1,000,-yard permit area boundary established by the California
                      Coastal Conservation Act of 1972.
                      In community growth areas only, the edge of a series of existing permanent buildings
                      is considered the boundary of the immediate shoreline, if within the area as defined
                      above. This type of boundary may not be considered to exist in the case of buildings
                      which are relatively isolated from the present ly-developed portion of a community
                      growth area.

                                                                                                                   -29-

                                                        For purposes of determining the immediate shoreline, "marine and coastal wildlife
                                                        habitat and/or natural areas" shall include, but not be limited to, beaches, sand dunes,
                                                        spits and baymouth bars, mudf lats, marshes, estuaries, lagoons, bays, rocky
                                                        intertidal areas, shellfish culture areas, riparian habitats, anadromous fish water-
                                                        ways and lakes.

                                                                       IMMEDIATE SHORELINE

                                                                                                                                    IMMEDIATE SHORELINE

                                                                                                                                             Area between mean
                                                                                                                                             high tide line and
                                                                                                                                    911mmediate Shore-
                                                                                                                                             line boundary

                                                                                                                                    .......  Marine and Coastal
                                                                                                                                             Wildlife Habitat

                                                                                                                      presently developed portion
                                                                                                                      of Community Growth Area

                                                                                                                           300 feet
                                                                                                                            (minimum width
                                                                                                                           of Immediate Shoreline)

                                                                                                                                                   1000 yard
                                                                                                                                                   Coastal Commission permit
                                                                                                                                                   area boundary
                                                                                                                                                   (maximum width of
                                                                                                                                                   I mmed iate Shoreline)

                                                                                                                                                    . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                                             mean high tide I ine

                 R E G A                     C

                                                                                                                                             iale
                                                        I LES                                                                                                 44t
                                                                                                                                                                          PC
                                                                                                         CO

                                                                                                                      BodE a
                                                                                                                       Bay

                                                                 F  Fort Ross

                          Sea Ranch

                                                                                                                   valfey

                                                                                                                                            ma

                                                                                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                               ma @'k'-ggp-

                                                                                                                                                                         m
                                                                                                                                                                          Ml

                                    IV. SUPPORTING STRATEGIES

                                    INTRODUCTION
                                    The conservation/development area designations in Chapter I I I bear some resem-
                                    blance to traditional regional land use plan categories. Yet, experience has shown
                                    that such designations in themselves are not sufficient to assure implementation.
                                    Thus, the conservation/development polices, whose basic objective is to assure that
                                    growth and development shall be compatible with the open space resources of
                                    regional significance, require support of several types.

                                    This chapter contains a set of supporting strategies by which the plan's objectives
                                    may be implemented. They are proposed as guidelines to public actions which can
                                    have important effects on the location of development pressures, public use and the
                                    regulation of growth and development in the coastal area.
                                    These strategies are grouped into three areas of concern:

                                    1 .  Directing coastal development to community growth areas, and away from areas
                                    of high open space value or significant hazard, through control of location, capacity
                                    and timing of major public service facilities, such as public water supply treatment and
                                    distribution facilities, roadways and sanitary sewage collection and treatment facilities.

                                    2.  Acquisition of open space areas for trails and other public uses and to protect
                                    regional open space resources from incompatible development; and

                                    3.   Regulation of land use, !and alteration and development.

                                    These strategies are consolidated into an overall and mutually supportive approach to
                                    assist in implementation of this plan. For example, one of the purposes of controlling
                                    extension or expansion of roads, sewer services and water supply facilities outside
                                    comrTiunity growth areas is to maintain relatively low property taxes. This helps
                                    reduce pressures for conversion of open space uses to intensive development, thereby
                                    allowing open space uses and activities to continue economically. Areas whose use is
                                    proposed for change would be subject to regulation to assure compatibility with the
                                    coastal environment, while regional open space resources which do not lend them-
                                    selves to adequate regulatory control are proposed for public acquisition. Full use and
                                    coordination of all three strategies is essential to realization of the plan.

                                    PUBLIC SERVICES

                                    General strategies regarding appropriate location and maximum service levels of trans-
                                    portation, water supply and sewer service should be used to influence land use deci-
                                    sions commensurate with established open space and development policy. Thepublic
                                    service strategies are divided into two parts - coastal accessibility, and sewer and water
                                    service. Each is intended for use in review of facilities and services improvement pro-
                                    posals, as well as specific planning of future coastal development.

                                                               -32-

                      Accessibility Strategy

                      The primary objective of the accessibility strategy is to direct relatively intensive
                      uses to community growth areas, and promote maximum opportunities for human
                      enjoyment of the coastal area through appropriate forms of public and private
                      transportation, shoreline access and a coastal trail system in a manner compatible
                      with conservation/development policies and area designations,
                      I .  An attractive public recreational transportation alternative to the private auto-
                      mobile should be devised for early implementation. Supplementary public recreational
                      access via public transportation should be provided for all significant increases in
                      recreational activities. In the long-term future, pressure on the coastal roadway
                      network from recreational day-users is likely to be considerably more severe than
                      pressure generated from residential development. Response to this demand requires
                      detailed transportation planning that cle-emphasizes dependence on private vehicles,
                      whether they be automobiles or campers. Because of increased leisure time and
                      alterations in the traditional patterns of recreational travel, it is likely that the tradi-
                      tionally-projected peak hour demands normally associated with average daily traffic
                      cannot be reliably used in the planning of roadway systems designed principally for
                      the recreation traveler. Recreation resources, whether they be public or private in
                      nature, should emphasize the use of mass transit feeder systems to transport users
                      from areas outside the coastal recreation system, such as from depots in urban areas,
                      to the recreational facilities. The transportation system itself should be designed to
                      serve both day and overnight recreation users.  In addition, access within recreation
                      areas should be planned to combine and coordinate use of mini-buses, bicycle lanes
                      and hiking and riding trails into a system which would preempt use of private vehicles
                      within the recreational areas.

                      2.  Major upgradings which would significantly increase the vehicular capacity of the
                      coastal roadway network may be permitted only within the Greater San Francisco
                      County urbanized area and environs. It is strongly recommended that the vehicular
                      capacity of the present coastal highway network be maintained outside the urbanized
                      center of the region's coastal area (from the Golden Gate to the southerly city limit
                      of Pacifica). The purpose for this recommendation is two-fold. Initially, several
                      points of constriction along the coastal longitudinal roadway system act to limit the
                      level of service. These are also deterrents to any major future increased use of the
                      road system. Second, most of these critical poi nts-regard less of their current
                      constricting effect on level of service-can nonetheless handle a greater number of
                      vehicles per hour than they now accommodate, albeit under more crowded conditions-
                      a reduced level of service. These two "attributes" of the current system significantly
                      affect the total use and rate of development within the coastal area in a manner that
                      complements regional coastal policies. Whatever additional service capacity might
                      be required should be achieved through use of public transit, rather than through
                      alterations to the present highway system itself. It is not the intent that necessary
                      modifications of roads which are unsafe be prohibited, provided that no significant
                      increase in roadway capacity results.

                                                                               -33-

                                       3. Proposals for development outside community growth areas should also include
                                       provisions for a) a local-serving commercial facility to provide food and convenience
                                       items, and b) a circulation pattern integrated into the site design that minimizes
                                       dependence on automobiles within the development itself. A double purpose is
                                       served by this strategy. First, it attempts to reduce the need for automobile rips
                                       outside such developments, and therefore minimizes traffic on the coastal highway.
                                       Second, it attempts to reduce use of the automobile inside such developments by
                                       encouraging use of paths and trails which could provide access to the recreational
                                       amenities of the area, once more minimizing the requirement for automobile use.
                                       Both of these elements are considered to be crucial in the design of all coastal
                                       development. A restraint must be imposed, however, so that the local commercial
                                       facility is not so specialized nor of such a size that it either acts a generator of
                                       traffic from areas outsido the development or requires a population not present
                                       within the development for its economic maintenance. Finally, it is recommended
                                       that when feasible, recreational trails and paths should be continuous through both
                                       public and private coastal lands td provide greater recreational opportunity for the
                                       private landowner as well as providing an access to commercial services that could
                                       serve the recreational day-user.

                                       4.  Frequent and easy public access should be provided laterally from major travel
                                       corridors to the ocean shoreline,- a regional coastal trail network should be constructed
                                       for use by a broad range of users. The network should make maximum use of exist-
                                       ing trail systems, and provide for continuity, ease of access, safety from hazards, sound
                                       relationships to existing and proposed natural resource conservation areas, protection
                                       of privacy and use of educational opportunities.

                                       Accessibility Implications: Coastal Roadway Network

                                       Several significant areas merit individual consideration to relate them to the four major
                                       accessibility policies. These areas are examined from north to south.
                                       Sonoma County is proceeding with plans for upgrading the existing county road
                                       from its intersection with Highway 1 north of Russian Gulch to just south of Ste-
                                       warts Point. While this will alleviate pressures on Highway I north of Russion Gulch,
                                       demands are certain to arise for the upgrading of that highway between its inter-
                                       section with Highway 116 south of Jenner and the improved county road. Most of
                                       this section is steep, tortuous and narrow, and passes through an area of very high
                                       visual value. The massive reconstruction necessary to increase road capacity through
                                       this section of Highway I would be a major assault upon the environment of the
                                       coastal area, and especially that of the county park at Russian Gulch.
                                       In the past, a realignment of Highway I from Keyes Creek in Marin County to Bodega
                                       Bay in Sonoma County has been proposed. An additional highway crossing of this
                                       area is not warranted, because the area is now accessible by other roads. Further,
                                       road improvements would cross an area with both severe hazards to public safety and
                                       regional open space resources. Massive slope stabilization for the many deep cuts and
                                       fills would be required, as well as two high bridges to cross two of the most important
                                       estuarine habitats in the region- Estero Americano and Estero de San Antonio. Any

                                                                       -34-

                          development adjacent to these wetland habitats, which have received Statewide at-
                          tention, would inevitably result in adverse impacts to these fragile areas.
                          It is proposed that accessibility to Point Reyes National Seashore be primarily by
                          public transportation, thereby reducing the relative dependency on private auto-
                          mobiles for visiting this area. In this area particularly, there are several reasons
                          why public transit is necessary. First, unless strict lateral access control is main-
                          tained both along a highwayroute and at its terminus, pressures for development
                          and land values in the entire area served would greatly increase, in conflict with this
                          plan and the Marin Countywide Plan. Improvements to State Highways 17 and 37,
                          therefore, would not appear to be the proper method for achieving desired increases
                          in accessibility to the National Seashore. Second, even with access control strictly
                          maintained along the route, there would remain the problem of large numbers of
                          private automobiles in or adjacent to the National Seashore, either on roads or in
                          parking areas, and the provisions necessary to accommodate them as their numbers
                          increased,

                          Maj or improvements to increase the capacity of Highway I through Olema Valley
                          is inappropriate in view of the plan to include this area in the Golden Gate National
                          Recreation Area. Olema Valley's considerable regional open space value and its
                          severe hazards suggest that it be maintained in permanent open space.

                          It would seem doubtful that such road improvements could be approved, or even
                          realistically proposed, without first significantly increasing the capacity of Highway
                          1 or Panoramic Highway which link the urbanized portions of Marin County to
                          Stinson Beach, Bolinas and Olema Valley. However, any increase in road capacity
                          in these areas could only be achieved at high cost - both environmental and economic.

                          Inc reases in accessibility within the coastal area of the Greater San Francisco County
                          urbanized area and environs are, in general, considered to be compatible with the
                          intent of this plan. However, several areas between the Golden Gate and the southerly
                          city limits of Pacifica, due to location or the presence of open space resources of
                          regional significance, warrant additional discussion.

                          Widening and straightening certain roads in the Presidio of San Francisco would
                          result in damage to the landscape and encouragement of higher speeds by regular
                          users of the roads. Speeding already is a problem in parts of the Presidio; the addition
                          of faster traffic would conflict with recreational use of this area foreseen in crea-
                          tion of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

                          Many roadways within the Presidio are not in full use due to locked gates. While it is
                          recognized that security is a consideration in some areas and that motor vehicle
                          access would not be appropriate in others, selected routes should be opened to allow
                          additional walking and bicycle riding in the Presidio, In this way, further public
                          enjoyment of this important publicly - owned regional open space resource would be
                          enhanced.

                          The City of San Francisco has proposed to realign and otherwise improve the Great
                          Highway which lies atop the embankment that separates residential areas from the beach.

                                                                                 -35-

                                     The Great Highway presently has four lanes divided by a median, allows pedestrian
                                     crossing only by three long underpasses which do not adequately serve the needs of
                                     local residents, and has continuing problems of excessive speed by motorists. The
                                     new road would consist of four lanes, with gentle curves to encourage reduced
                                     vehicle speeds. Also included would be parking bays within the curves on the ocean
                                     side of the roadway, and local parks and tot-lots below road grade on the residential
                                     side. The present pedestrian undercrossings would be reduced in length and
                                     increased in number, and traffic control and vehicle access would be increased by
                                     placement of a signalized intersection near the center of the improvement, This
                                     proposal is in conformance with the plan, because it would further local and re-
                                     gional public use and enjoyment of this beach resource and would enhance the visual
                                     amenity of the shoreline in the most heavily- urbanized portion of the region's
                                     coastal area.

                                     Pacifica is connected to the rest of the urbanized area by State Highway I along the
                                     coast from San Francisco, and Sharp Park Road from the bayside of San Mateo
                                     County. Improvement or augmentation of all or parts of these routes, as necessary
                                     to provide additional safety and convenience to Pacifica's service and commuting
                                     needs, is consistent with this plan. Any improvements of these routes should be designed
                                     so that they provide no significant increase in commuter accessibility to the mid-coast-
                                     side of San Mateo County, in accord with the accessibility and conservation/clevelop-
                                     ment policies for that area. Design should also be consistent with the Development
                                     Review Criteria with regard to minimization of environmental impact on the coastal
                                     area, and especially outside the Pacifica community growth area.

                                     In the mid-coastside of San Mateo County, there are several relatively small communi-
                                     ties which are dependent upon low commuting times to San Francisco and the bay-
                                     side for their present high land values and residential growth rates. If highway acces-
                                     sibility is significantly increased, even greater pressures for development will surface,
                                     land values will continue to increase, private open space uses will be taxed out of
                                     existence, speculators holding large parcels of mid-coastside lands will reap a wind-
                                     fall return and the local residents, county and region will face irretrievable loss of
                                     one of their most important open space assets.

                                     The mid-coastside is accessible to regional population concentrations via coastal
                                     State Highway I from the north, and State Highway 92 from the east. Highway 92
                                     is the major access route for residents of the southern portion of the region to coastal
                                     recreational resources. It serves as well as the principal service and emergency vehi-
                                     cle access from western to eastern portions of San Mateo County. State improvements
                                     of this major artery are currently in the planning stages.

                                     Also presently under consideration is the relocation and improvement of the portion
                                     of Highway 1 to the north as it traverses Montara Mountain-the Devil's Slide area.
                                     The main intent here is to remove the highway and its users from dangers inherent
                                     in its present location and state. It is also important to provide for the needs of
                                     pedestrians and bicyclists. This latter consideration is very important, since this is the
                                     only route available from Pacifica to the mid-coastside.

                                                                         -36-

                            Road improvements may be necessary to provide for increased safety and service
                            levels to the mid-coastside community growth areas. It is recommended that the main
                            focus of such improvements be Highway 92. This is due to the emphasis of the City
                            of Half Moon Bay as the primary community growth area of the mid-coastside
                            combined with the greater flexibility of access afforded by Highway 92 as a connec-
                            tor to regional population centers.

                            Highway capacity, and not precise locational considerations, are the issues of impor-
                            tance in relation to the development pressures in the mid-coastside. In the event that
                            such improvements are proposed for these highways, it is recommended that sev-
                            eral alternative designs be investigated and a design which will provide only sufficient
                            capacity for levels of residential growth commensurate with the conservation/develoD-
                            ment policies, while emphasizing safety at the expense of speed, be adopted.

                            There is presently no alternative to the private automobile for recreational travel
                            to the San Mateo County coastside. The major public attractions here are the linear
                            beaches, backed by State Highway 1. Presently, the holding capacity of these beaches
                            is determined more by automobile parking capacity than by ability of the beaches
                            to withstand use. As a linear feature, these coastal recreation resources are well suited
                            to a system of public transportation to serve recreational needs. Increases in recreational
                            accessibility to this area should be accomplished through this means, rather than
                            through increases in highway capacity. The system to be provided should be subsidized
                            on a regional level, and the system should be tailored to meet the needs of recreation-
                            ists, rather than those of commuters or other travelers.

                            South of the City of Half Moon Bay, Highway 1 should be maintained at its present
                            capacity.

                            Accessibility Implications: Coastal Trail System
                            The regional coastal trail system, as shown on the map in this chapter, will contain
                            shoreline, beach, coastal terrace, and upland ridge sections. Together, these provide
                            Lhe potential to achieve a continuous trail, since several gaps in the shoreline trail are
                            foreseen due to difficult terrain or roadway safety considerations. Major spur trails
                            from the main coastal trail are also indicated on the map. These provide direct lateral
                            access to important shoreline recreation areas. Bicycle trails are shown as a set of
                            discontinuous routes due to requirements for trail service, grade and safety. Equestrian
                            use of hiking trails is generally assumed at this time, although after review for confor-
                            mance with. the environmental impact concerns expressed in the regional coastal policies,
                            some trails may be determined to be unsuitable or inappropriate for equestrian use.

                            Planning and Design Criteria

                            Trails from the interior to the coast should make available to a large number of
                            persons an alternative to the private automobile, The coastal trail should emphasize
                            proximity to the shoreline whenever practicable. The routes should follow natural
                            features, including creeks, ridgelines, and the shoreline wherever possible. Man-made
                            linear features, such as roadway and public utility rights-of-way and easements could

                                                                           -37-

                                   also be incorporated into the trails system where appropriate. Small campgrounds
                                   may be provided along the trail, away from direct vehicular access points,
                                   to provide for camping experiences not available in more intensively used camp-
                                   grounds,

                                   Trailheads should be located to provide accessibility, ease of maintenance and mini-
                                   mum environmental impact. Trailheads within regional coastal parks or coastal
                                   recreation areas should be incorporated into the more developed portions of such
                                   facilities. Trailheads may include parking areas large enough to accommodate cars,
                                   horse trailers and buses, sanitary facilities, picnic areas and shelter.

                                   Detailed planning and refinements of the trail system should be based on these con-
                                   siderations. Review should be made of the potential for adverse environmental
                                   impacts, especially where existing park facilities and bicycle and hiking trails converge.
                                   Resting stations along specific trail segments are not identified at this time.

                                   Trail Network Description

                                   Proceeding from north to south, the coastal trail system would begin at Gualala
                                   County Park at the mouth of the Gualala River, and continue along the coastal
                                   terraces to Black Point, This portion would afford one of only two major shoreline
                                   - related trails in Sonoma County. At Black Point the trail would cross to Seaview
                                   Ridge, and return to the shoreline area in the vicinity of the Russian River. At
                                   Black Point and especially at the Russian River, detailed studies are necessary to
                                   determine precise locations of the links from ridge to shore. Along the Seaview
                                   Ridge trail, four spur trails to the shore are indicated: at Stewarts Point, throuqh
                                   Kruse Rhododendron State Reserve, Salt Point State Park and Timber Cove.
                                   A fifth spur, south of Fort Ross, should be studied further. Trailhead facilities
                                   should be at both ends of each spur trail.

                                   Crossing of the Russian River might be made at either Bridge Haven or Duncans
                                   Mills. From the Russian River the trail would proceed south along the beaches from
                                   Arched Rock to Salmon Creek. Existing spur trails lead to Bodega Bay and continue
                                   along the bluffs overlooking the Estero Americano to the crossing at Valley Ford.
                                   The bicycle trail would continue north on Highway 1, and return to Bodega Bay along
                                   state and local roads.

                                   From Valley Ford bicycle and hiking trails would proceed south to Dillon Beach,
                                   with several spur trails to the bluffs overlooking the ocean. The bicycle trail would
                                   continue along Highway 1 to Tornales, where it would join an old railroad grade.
                                   The hiking trail.would circle the beaches and dunes along Sand Point and join the
                                   old railroad grade above Preston Point. Construction of a new trail bridge across
                                   Walker Creek would reconnect to the portion of the railroad grade and allow
                                   continuation south along Tomales Bay to Marshall.

                                   From Marshall, both the main hiking and bicycle trails would proceed along Highway
                                   1 to Stinson Beach. Connections would be provided to existing trails in the Point
                                   Reyes National Seashore and Samuel P. Taylor State Park, Mt. Tamalpais State Park,

                                                                       -38-

                           and the Marin Municipal Water District watershed, From Stinson Beach the bicycle
                           trail would continue south along Panoramic Highway, while the hiking trail proceeded
                           parallel to Highway I to Muir Beach. Trailhead facilities at Muir Beach would serve
                           hiking to the northand both bicycling and hiking to the south along the Golden
                           Gate Headlands.

                           South of Golden Gate the main trailway would begin at Fort Scott in the Presidio
                           of San Francisco, and proceed around Lands End, along Ocean Beach, through Fort
                           Funston to Sharp Park State Beach. The trail through Pacifica would follow the
                           planned county trail route, and proceed over Montara Mountain to El Granada. From
                           Half Moon Bay a continuous hiking and bicycle trail would proceed along the num-
                           erous coastal beaches or bluffs above, terminating in Ano Nuevo State Reserve.
                           Trailhead facilities to the coastal and inland trail network to connect to the com-
                           plex of park and wilderness areas in the San Francisco watershed lands and Santa
                           Cruz Mountains are proposed in Montara, El Granada, Half Moon Bay, Tunitas
                           Beach, San Gregorio State Beach, Pomponio State Beach, Pescadero State Beach,
                           and Bean Hollow State Beach.

                           Water and Sewer Service Strategy

                           Sewer and water service strategy is predicated on the previously-described co   ' nserva-
                           tion/clevelopment policies. The express purpose is to control the location and capa-
                           city of sewer and water facilities to:

                           1)  ensure consistency with regional coastal policies which recommend appropriate
                           locations for urban use and development;
                           2)   minimize public expenditures in facilities and services; and

                           3)  ensure that the use of water and its subsequent disposal do not result in adverse
                           environmental impacts.

                           These strategies are intended to be detailed and implemented in conjunction with the
                           State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the Bay Area Sewage Services
                           Agency (BASSA). Under some circumstances, departures may be required for
                           reasons unrelated to growth control. In order for these strategies to be implemented,
                           powers of existing agencies may have to be expanded. No strategy herein should be
                           used to place an upper limit on the quality of: water delivered by public water
                           systems; sewage treatment" or overall service of any public utility or service district.

                           The following are grouped according to the three conservation/development area
                           classifications: community growth, open use-limited development and natural re-
                           source conservation.

                           Community Growth
                           In community growth areas, extension of facilities and creation or expansion of
                           service district boundaries are permissible. While both water and sewer service
                           may not be currently available, the future provision of such service is consistent

                                                                             -39-

                                    with regional coastal policy. This is not, however, a recommendation that services
                                    be immediately inaugurated or extended to all portions of these areas. Rather, it
                                    is a recognition that servicing of community growth areas would not be inconsistent
                                    with regional coastal policies, once development phasing and ultimate levels of
                                    service are established.

                                    Open Use - Limited Development
                                    In open use - limited development areas, no major expansion of existing facilities
                                    beyond that necessary to serve existing development should be permitted. In such
                                    areas only internally supporting, self-contained facilities should be permitted. In
                                    the open use - limited development areas there is potential for development which
                                    may be inconsistent with open space policies. Service currently provided should
                                    not be expanded or extended outside of an existing area of development so as to
                                    induce or facilitate development determined to be inconsistent with regional coastal
                                    policies. Services may be inaugurated, expanded, or extended for: 1) development
                                    already initiated which assumed available services; and 2) development already com-
                                    pleted for which such service is now required by discharge requirements of a regional
                                    water quality control board.

                                    Natural Resource Conservation

                                    In natural resource conservation areas, extension of water supply and sewer service
                                    facilities may be provided for recreational uses, and extension of water supply
                                    facilities may be provided for agricultural uses. These areas are characterized by an
                                    open space with agricultural, wildlife habitat or recreational value, Imported water,
                                    when expressly limited principally to irrigation purposes, may be made available to
                                    agricultural portions of these areas, while sewage disposal may be accomplished
                                    through use of septic tanks. Water supply and sewer services may be provided for
                                    recreational areas, so long as the service networks and capacities do not exceed the
                                    requirements of the recreational area itself.

                                    Four supporting service strategies also are proposed for all areas outside the
                                    community growth areas:
                                    I .  Except for agricultural uses, no further construction for interbasin transfer of
                                    water should be permitted, Hence, the only permissible new water supply source
                                    shall be ground water or local, small-scale surface water impoundments. Dependence
                                    on local water supply is an environmentally sound approach to controlling the loca-
                                    tion of new development. Where local water is not available, new development
                                    should not occur. Use is to be limited to ground water and local, small-scale im-
                                    poundments in an attempt both to maintain the quality of the watersheds and ground
                                    water basins and to utilize an available and measurable resource to guide development.
                                    On a regional basis, a significant limiting factor to new coastal development is the
                                    quantity and quality of local water supplies. Therefore, the amount of development
                                    should not exceed an established safe rate of withdrawal from the local watershed or
                                    ground water basin. That rate has not been established in most areas, and no substantial
                                    development should be allowed prior to its identification,

                                                                         -40-

                             Thus, several public actions are necessary: a) the public agency should first establish
                             the safe yield of water sources within a given watershed or ground water basin, which
                             mayebe used to determine allowable intensities and types of use within the basin;
                             b) all water use is to be monitored, and metering devices required on all existing and
                             future water supply systems,- and c) as part of water use monitoring, the responsible
                             agency should, at appropriate intervals, conduct water quality and pumping tests
                             as appropriate to determine the adequacy and potability of supply, This information
                             can then be used in reviewing other proposals for development within a particular
                             watershed or ground water basin.

                             By prohibiting connections to an existing water system, several undesirable growth
                             effects are eliminated. Large-scale development, normally attracted by major water
                             supply lines, is no longer encouraged and, whereas most municipal water systems
                             can increase capacity based on projected need (e.g., through water importation or
                             impoundment), the proposed development would require dependence on a single,
                             self-recharging resource.

                             The prerogatives regarding additional restrictions on impoundments and ground water
                             use should be maintained. As a general policy it is recommended that impoundments
                             and ground water withdrawals must take place only within the property in which the
                             water is to be used. The effect of this is to restrict development to those areas having
                             available watersheds or ground water supply. While this might make some areas less
                             developable, it would encourage landowners to merge or aggregate their property.
                             Aggregation would provide opportunities for development or use more compatible
                             with regional coastal policies, and allow for large areas of open space, small concen-
                             trated areas of development, and preservation of natural resource values. However,
                             in some instances it may be preferable to permit utilization of surface or ground water
                             whose source is on an adjacent property. In such instances, the public agency should
                             have the power to determine if regional goals would best be served by waiving the on-
                             site water supply requirement. In no instance, however, should an impoundment
                             to provide water supply to development be allowed to occupy a natural resource
                             conservation area.

                             If water is to be imported, one of the following conditions must be present: existing
                             local water supply is not suitable for agricultural use because of the quality and/or
                             availability of the resource; or water is currently being withdrawn at or near the
                             maximum safe yield and additional withdrawal threatens the supply. In al I instances,
                             imported water must be expressly I imited by contract to agricultural and/or com-
                             munity growth area uses only.
                             While these limitations on water use attempt to protect the supply source, they must
                             be viewed in the long run as only temporal in nature. Therefore, it is recommended
                             that a more detailed water-use policy be developed along the guidelines shown
                             through examination of local watersheds and ground water basins along the coast and
                             establishment of policies which integrate the implications of water importance,
                             agricultural water use and continuing dependence on local water supply for residential
                             use.

                                                                              -41-

                                    2.  Sewage treatment must be accomplished locally using either a carefully sited
                                    land disposal system or a packaged sewage system which treats effluent to produce
                                    water of highest quality. This recognizes that growth is encouraged by large-scale
                                    technical ly-eff icient regional sewage disposal systems, and that it is in the interest of
                                    coastal preservation to rely on smaller-scale, natural processes for sewage treatment..
                                    Septic tanks, filter fields, and effluent spray techniques, when designed, sited and
                                    maintained according to rigorous standards, are preferred methods of sewage dis-
                                    posal and treatment. Testing for suitability for these uses must be made before issuing
                                    any permit for their construction and/or operation, Additionally, tests must be
                                    made at regular intervals to ensure that systems are not overloaded. It is recognized
                                    that in some instances the natural conditions required to support a land discharge
                                    sewage disposal system may not be present. Under such circumstances, the responsi-
                                    ble public agencies shall have the prerogative to permit utilization of a small sewage
                                    system that services the local area or project only, and treats effluent so that the
                                    resulting water is of the highest possible and appropriate quality.

                                    3.   All direct and indirect costs for sewer and water systems should be borne by
                                    developers and users of the system and not passed on to the public-at-large. Public
                                    investments in capital, operating and maintenance expenditures for sewer and water
                                    facilities within open space areas should be fully covered by the developer or users of
                                    the area. It is imperative that such systems be managed and maintained by a quasi-
                                    public or public agency having responsibility for compliance with all discharge re-
                                    quirements and health laws. Examples of methods to accomplish this and include a
                                    management agreement with an existing water company, sewage disposal authority,
                                    or community service district, and establishment of a separate entity whose sole
                                    responsibility would be management and maintenance, A homeowners' association,
                                    as typically constituted, would not suffice. Any impact resulting from a system
                                    defect or improper placement, utilization or management of the facilities should
                                    remain the responsibility of the property owners served, as represented by the
                                    managing agency. For example, in an instance where septic tanks have been sited
                                    improperly (e.g., in areas of severe septic tank unsuitability or for developments
                                    beyond the capacity of the natural system to effectively treat sewage), and the local
                                    water supply becomes polluted, the developer and property owners should be liable
                                    to al I users of that water.

                                    4.   Sewer and water systems must be designed and constructed at a capacity appro-
                                    priate only to the proposed use. This is intended to prevent overbuilding or over-
                                    design of a sewer or water system which, if unregulated, would provide a potential
                                    for additional development beyond levels compatible with regional coastal policy.

                                    ACQUISITION

                                    Rationale for Acquisition

                                    This section is concerned only with acquisition of lands designated in the plan for
                                    retention of open space which are not amenable to regulation as the means for im-
                                    plementation. Both the type of open space resources to be protected in this manner
                                    and priorities are included in this section.

                                                                     -42-

                            It should be recognized that many other areas are also appropriate for public acquisi-
                            tion. It is not the intent that these recommendations be used to supplant the con-
                            tinuing park, recreation, and natural preserve acquisition and development programs
                            of any of the various agencies responsible for such work. Rather, acquisition accord-
                            ing to the priorities in this plan is intended to augment regulation efforts, further
                            assuring that compatible open space uses are retained in areas containing identified
                            regional open space resources. The efforts of these agencies is to be supported by
                            providing assurance that appropriate open space resources wil I remain undeveloped
                            until they themselves are able to fully implement the programs indicated in their
                            respective plans.
                            Sites selected for assignment of an acquisition priority have been determined accord-
                            ing to two criteria:
                            I .   Any site proposed for public open space acquisition must be eligible for designa-
                            tion as a regional open space resource as defined and mapped in this plan.

                            2.    Other reasonable alternatives for protecting the site's resources must be either
                            infeasible or unavailable.

                            Often there is considerable overlap of the various regional open space resource values.
                            Wildlife habitat is often associated with public recreation values, for example, and
                            severe hazards to public safety are found in all the open space resource categories.
                            Prime agricultural soils and severe hazards to public safety, - including steep slopes
                            - generally lend themselves to regulation by government in the interests of the pub@
                            lic health, safety and welfare. Hence, sites possessing these characteristics do not
                            meet the second criterion, since other alternatives may be used to protect regional
                            open space resources. Of the several open space resources of regional significance,
                            recreational and wildlife habitat resources are the least subject to protection through
                            governmental regulation alone. For that reason, of those properties included in the
                            Open Space Values and Constraints map, those possessing only public recreation and/or
                            wildlife habitat resources, to the exclusion of all others, are considered appropriate
                            for assignment of an acquisition priority.

                            Public recreation and wildlife habitat resources both provide a sound basis for public
                            acquisition. This is especially in view of the generally complex and unresolved ques-
                            tions dealing with regulation to secure large parcels containing regional open
                            space resources. Both may be considered a public use or benefit under the constitu-
                            tion, hence appropriate for acquisition using a variety of procedures.

                            Assignment of Priorities
                            Priorities have been assigned to eligible sites according to relative resource value and
                            threat of loss to incompatible development. The greater the regional open space
                            value, or higher the likelihood that the resource will succumb to inappropriate
                            development, the higher the priority assigned. Threat of loss has been determined
                            from the presence of a selected number of development indications-factors impor-
                            tant to the feasibility of residential or commercial development.

                                                                         -43-

                                   A site considered to have high development pressures typically has: a develop-
                                   ment proposed, or known to be in preparation, which would be incompatible
                                   with the regional open space value of the site; sewer or water services available
                                   to site; and relatively easy access to either employment centers or to popula-
                                   tions seeking second home sites. Sites perceived to have medium development
                                   pressures typically are: presently for sale, but have no known development
                                   proposal; near existing development; and in locations where sewer or water ser-
                                   vices might be extended relatively easily. On the other hand, sites having rela-
                                   tively low development pressures typically: have no development or sale pro-
                                   posed or known; are under contract pursuant to the Land Conservation Act
                                   (Williamson Act),- and have conditions present under which provision for
                                   sewage disposal or water supply would be relatively difficult or impossible.

                                   While the approval of cities, counties and various governmental agencies is essen-
                                   tial to any development, the policies, plans and zoning of these agencies are
                                   subject to change, Consequently, they have not been considered in this deter-
                                   mination of development pressures.

                                   For purposes of assigning acquisition priorities, the degree of recreational value
                                   has been considered to be the sum of four factors: 1) ability of the site to
                                   provide public access to the shore from a public road; 2) inclusion of a beach
                                   resource in the site,- 3) presence of, and opportunity to protect, important
                                   views from public roads; and 4) relative demand for the site type and location.
                                   Each of these factors has been given equal weight in the determination of degree
                                   of recreational value.

                                   Relative value of wildlife habitat resources, as used herein, is a sum of the recom-
                                   mendations from various state and local agencies and informed individuals which
                                   were used in preparing the Open Space Values and Constraints map. Higher
                                   ratings have been assigned to unique wildlife habitats, and lower ratings to other
                                   valuable coastal habitats.

                                   Each of the three factors used to determine acquisition priorities - threat of loss,
                                   degree of recreational value and relative value of wildlife habitat - has been assigned
                                   equal weight. Each open space resource site under consideration due to need
                                   for protection through public acquisition has been evaluated using each of the factors.
                                   Relative values for the sites have been compared, and each site assigned a priority
                                   according to value. The sites and their relative priorities for acquisition are shown
                                   on the Acquisition Priorities map,

                                   DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

                                   The public exercise of acquisition power is not essential to maintain all coastal values.
                                   There is sufficient regulatory authority to prevent destruction, degradation and
                                   obscuring of coastal resources by insensitive use and development. Further, regulation
                                   may be used for outright prohibition of development on agricultural lands and in
                                   hazardous areas,

                                   Effective regulation of coastal development must rely in large part on detailed and

                                                                                     -44-

                             coordinated development review by public agencies. Such regulation consistent
                             with planning policies should ensure that both public and private coastal activi-
                             ties are appropriately located and that environmental impacts are minimized.

                             Review criteria in this plan are comprehensive in scope, yet remain at a general level
                             of detail. Basis for each of the review criteria is found in one or more of the regional
                             coastal policies, supporting strategies and additional recommendations included in
                             this plan. However, current levels of knowledge of natural coastal processes and the
                             uneven quality of data for much of the coastal area preclude advance formulation
                             of specific review criteria in some subject areas.

                             The review criteria are arranged in a series of six "tests" to determine if a development
                             proposal conforms to regional coastal policy and supporting strategies. While no single
                             test is conclusive "proof" that a proposal is appropriate to the site or to the coastal
                             area in general, failure of any single test is sufficient grounds for rejection of a
                             proposed project, which must conform to all criteria in all tests.

                             In all cases, it is the responsibility of the applicant to provide sufficient data and
                             analysis, commensurate with the scale, type and location of the proposal, to enable
                             the reviewing agency to perform each test in the series. This may be supplied either
                             directly by the applicant or by the reviewing agency at the applicant's expense,
                             as appropriate. A full discussion of the review procedure and its organizational
                             implications is included in Chapter V.

                                              APPLICATION OF

                                              DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

                                              CRITERIA

                                                CONSERVATION/DEVELOPMENT AREA

                                                Community Growth, Immediate Shoreline

                                                Community Growth, Non-Shoreline

                                                Open Use - Limited Development, Immediate Shoreline

                                                Open Use - Limited Development, Non-Shoreline

                                                Natural Resource Conservation, Immediate Shoreline

                                                Natural Resource Conservation, Non-Shoreline

                                                                                   -45-

                                       Test 1: Conservation/Development Policy

                                       The first test compares the uses proposed by the applicant with the conservation/
                                       development   'designations described and mapped in Chapter I 11. Once it is deter-
                                       mined in which of the areas the proposal is located, appropriate criteria listed in
                                       Chapter 11. are used in the testing process. The accompanying table indicates the
                                       nature of those criteria for each of the designations.

                                       Test 2: Regional Open Space Resources

                                       The second test is a more detailed analysis of regional open space resources. The
                                       intent is to minimize the irretrievable commitment of these resources to either in-
                                       tensive development or to uses which are not compatible with the nature of the
                                       resources. Regardless of the degree of coastal dependence or public benefit demon-
                                       strated in Test 1, it remains in the greater public interest to ensure that specific uses
                                       will not degrade the quality of regional open space resources which are considered
                                       to be critical elements of the coastal environment. In the discussion which follows,
                                       these are Jivided into wildlife habitat, recreation, and agricultural resources,

                                       Wildlife Habitat Resources

                                       Although not all resources included within this category are wildlife habitats in the
                                       usual sense, each is important in the I ifecycle of fish or wildlife, and the problems
                                       associated with their use are often similar. This category specifically includes, but
                                       is not limited to, beaches, sand dunes, spits and bay-mouth bars, mudflats, marshes,
                                       estuaries, lagoons, bays, rocky interticlal areas, shellfish culture areas, riparian habitats,
                                       anadromous fish waterways and lakes. These areas should, to the maximum extent
                                       possible, be limited to those educational, scientific and recreational uses which
                                       are able to clearly demonstrate a high degree of resource compatibility and minimal,
                                       if any, impact on fish or wildlife habitat.

                                       Public Recreation Resources

                                       Identified public recreation resources, including areas of significant historical or
                                       archeological value and areas of outstanding scenic amenity, should be maintained
                                       for public use and enjoyment in open space uses. Areas planned for later acquisition
                                       should, in the interim, be maintained in compatible uses. Therefore, no major con-
                                       struction should be allowed on an identified public recreation resource.

                                       At the regional level, direct public uses of coastal recreation resources are separated
                                       into three categories: I ) coastal recreation areas are generally small recreation re-
                                       sources able to accommodate large numbers of users; 2) regional coastal park areas
                                       are larger areas set aside for less intensive public use, although they may include
                                       portions devoted to more intensive use; and 3) regional coastal trails are linear parks
                                       which may connect or pass through each of the other types of recreation resources,
                                       Appropriate trail uses and management policies, together with recommendations for
                                       a regional coastal trail system are included earlier in this chapter.

                                                                   -46-

                          A coastal recreation area is primarily an intensive recreational use area. It is planned
                          and maintained to accommodate large numbers of users. Examples of such a facility
                          are Doran Beach at Bodega Bay, Stinson Beach State Park, and Ocean Beach in San
                          Francisco. Accessibility to these facilities is relatively good, and the natural environ-
                          ment is generally able to absorb the activity of large numbers of people without sus-
                          taining permanent or substantial damage. Generally, coastal recreation areas will be
                          smaller than regional coastal parks, but the amount of intensive human use will be
                          greater. Heavy capital investment may be needed, but extensive landscape alteration
                          is undesirable. A significant portion of the capital investment for each of the coastal
                          recreation areas should be utilized to provide access to these areas by means less
                          damaging to the environment than private automobiles. To increase understanding
                          and enjoyment of the coastal ecosystem, nature interpretive facilities and small
                          environmental areas should be set aside for such uses.

                          A regional coastal park must include "environmental" areas, and may include "recrea-
                          tional" areas. Most of the park area must possess outstanding natural resources or
                          scenic values. Use of this area should not destroy its character. Facilities provided
                          may include trails, a very limited degree of vehicular access and basic development
                          necessary for primitive campsites.

                          Recreational areas of regional coastal parks should accommodate all the development
                          appropriate to the entire regional coastal park, thereby preserving the environmental
                          area primarily in its natural state. Hence, any recreational development such as
                          campgrounds, picnic facilities, nature interpretive facilities,.equestrian facilities,
                          roads and beach use areas, must be accommodated in recreational areas, and not
                          extend into environmental areas.

                          A regional coastal trail is a linear park whose function is to allow safe and pleasant
                          non-motorized travel between the coast and the interior, and between coastal parks
                          along the entire coast. Regional coastal trails will also include trailheads - staging
                          and resting areas. The trails will provide scenic routes to and within the coastal
                          area without trespassing on private lands. Careful maintenance of the trail and its
                          surroundings will be necessary. Further criteria are included in the section dealing
                          with accessibility strategies, above.

                          Prime Agricultural Resources
                          Prime coastal agricultural resources, created by a favorable combination of soils and
                          marine-dominated climate, make possible this region's production of artichokes,
                          broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower and much of its cut flowers. The best and
                          most extensive production area in the region for these crops is on the coastal ter-
                          races of San Mateo County, but Marin and Sonoma Counties also possess several
                          small areas of this kind. More specific information regarding the classification of
                          these resources is contained in Chapter 11.
                          Prime agricultural areas should be reserved for agriculturally - dominated activities.
                          These areas should not be committed to intensive development, nor should they be
                          taxed beyond their agricultural value or otherwise forced out of business.

                                                                              -47-

                                    Test 3: Hazards to Public Safety

                                    Hazards to public safety include seismic-induced shaking, slope stability, suscepti-
                                    bility to shoreline erosion, steep slopes in excess of 40%, and flooding from storm
                                    runoff and seismic sea waves. Building should not take place in areas subject to
                                    significant hazards. Such areas should be maintained in open space uses which will
                                    not significantly be endangered by such hazards. Areas which 1) are presently deve-
                                    loped or subdivided, and have water supply and waste disposal facilities installed;
                                    and 2) which make appropriate and continuing provisions to adequately inform
                                    prospective buyers and builders of such hazards as may reasonably be expected;
                                    shall be exempt from the provisions of this test which pertain only to onsite
                                    hazards.

                                    Reasonable and appropriate setbacks from beach and bluff lines should be provided
                                    where hazardous shoreline erosion may be reasonably anticipated. Such setbacks
                                    should be in addition to any other setbacks required for provision of public access
                                    and mitigation of the visual impacts of the development from public areas.

                                    Test 4: Public Services and Facilities

                                    The fourth test has two parts, one dealing with coastal accessibility, the other with
                                    water supply and sewage disposal. These subjects are discussed earlier in this chap-
                                    ter. The demands reasonably expected to be made on the coastal highway and public
                                    transportation networks must be meshed with the accessibility strategies and specific
                                    locational recommendations derived from them. In addition, development which
                                    would result in levels of use greater than existing highway capacity should not be
                                    permitted. The proposal must be tested for conformance with the service strategies
                                    pertaining to the area in which the proposed project is located.

                                    Test 5: Public Access to the Shoreline

                                    Public access from state or local roads or trails to the shoreline should be provided
                                    to the maximum extent practicable. Access should be located to facilitate loop
                                    excursions and controlled to prevent harm to the environment, high operating costs,
                                    or substantial trespass over private lands.
                                    A public access easement, at least 100 feet wide (beginning at the mean high tide
                                    line) should be dedicated along the shoreline wherever private development is per-
                                    mitted. This width may be increased, to a reasonable degree, at the discretion of
                                    the reviewing agency. Topography, public safety, site security, etc., could justify
                                    such increases.

                                    Test 6: Impact on the Natural and Physical Environment

                                    This last test is specifically focused on determining allowable levels of impact on the
                                    natural and physical environment outside community growth areas. The criteria in
                                    this test are at a general level of detail, since specific data is lacking and current know-

                                                                     -48-

                         ledge of natural coastal processes is often very general. The criteria are arranged into
                         four subject areas for general review purposes, although there is overlap of several of
                         the criteria.

                         Resource Conservation

                         Wildlife can only be preserved by protecting the natural habitat for each specie.
                         To do this, grading and excavation should avoid disturbances to soil, water, or
                         rooting patterns that would destroy the vegetation.
                         To help maintain an ecologically balanced forest, with trees of different ages and va-
                         riety and a diversified plant community, timber operations should be limited to
                         thinning or selective harvest practices, and be followed by timely and thorough clean-
                         up because of the potential adverse impact of timber harvesting practices.
                         No development should significantly disrupt the natural erosion and transport of
                         sand or other beach material from coastal watersheds into the coast's littoral circu-
                         lation system.

                         Site preparation procedures and construction should be carefully controlled to reduce
                         to the maximum extent possible increases in erosion or sedimentation rates.

                         Water Resources

                         A development which contributes to increases in levels of surface water runoff detri-
                         mental to the existence of important natural resources should not be allowed. ,
                         increases in levels of surface water runoff should be reduced to the maximum extent
                         possible to minimize erosion.

                         Significant woodland watersheds, water recharge areas, and other elements having a
                         direct bearing on the quality of public water supplies shall be preserved.
                         Coastal landforms important to the essential hydrologic values should not be altered.
                         Withdrawals from ground water basins should not be allowed in such quantity that
                         a continued supply would be jeoporclized.
                         The placement of impermeable surfacing or compaction of permeable soils and geo-
                         logic areas should not be allowed to significantly disrupt or diminish natural patterns
                         of ground water recharge.
                         Inter-basin transfers of water resources, although acceptable for certain purposes,
                         should not be permitted which have significant adverse impacts on water regimen
                         stability and water quality.

                         Environmental Quality

                         Standards for emission of air pollutants set by an air pollution control board and the
                         Air Resources Board must be met, for protection of coast-related crops, the natural
                         environment and public health, as well as restoration and maintenance of the aestheti-

                                                                            -49-

                                  cally appealing quality of a relatively unpolluted coastal atmosphere.
                                  Where local climatic and topographic factors are conducive to airshed pollutant con-
                                  centration, the location and arrangement of land uses and population density should
                                  reflect such conditions.

                                  No use or development may introduce significant levels of noxious odors into the
                                  coastal environment.

                                  Developments resulting in noise levels which may have a substantial detrimental ef-
                                  fect on the quality or resources of the coastal environment must be prohibited.

                                  Pesticides and other chemicals used in the coastal area should be of the types and
                                  amounts that will have no significant or persistent adverse effects upon the coastal
                                  environment.

                                  Solid and liquid waste discharge and disposal must not contaminate water resources
                                  or adversely affect the aquatic environment of the coastal area.
                                  Discharge of water containing organic nutrients should be shifted, to maximum extent
                                  possible, from the aquatic environment, where it may be detrimental, to land environ-
                                  ments where such nutrients are useful fertilizers.

                                  Visual Impact

                                  Development should carefully fit the land and water environment so that its presence
                                  is subordinated to the character of the coastal environment.

                                  Grading and excavation should complement natural configurations of topography.

                                  Public views from major travel corridors should be protected and enhanced, and de-
                                  velopment should not be allowed which would significantly obscure, detract or
                                  negatively affect the quality of these views.

                                  Developments should not be allowed to unreasonably obscure cones of vision and views
                                  of or along the coast.

                                  Urban appurtenances, including roadway and building signs, traffic signals, overhead
                                  wires and telephone and lighting poles, should be of minimum bulk and height and
                                  designed to have an uncluttered appearance and be subordinant to the setting.
                                  No off-premise outdoor advertising should be permitted.

                                  Highway development should include vista points and roadside rests which provide
                                  motorists with an opportunity to view scenic amenities and natural features of the
                                  coast I i ne.

                                  Selective clearing of vegetation which allows the display of important views from
                                  highways which parallel the coastline may be permitted.

                                                                                                                                                                      @v
                                                                                    C: DI                                                                                  4(t-
                 REC@6            A           C                                          I

                                                                                                                             Y
                                               SC     I   ILES                                                                                To ales                               i   Reyes Sta
                                                                                                                                                                                  p
                                              .0               6                                             CO
                                                                                                                                              o\w            \4
                                                                                                                                          IN          I ma
                                                                                                                             Bod  a                                     Inverne
                                                                                             Jenner                          Ba

                                                                        Fort Ross

                          Sea Ranch

                                                                                                                             C

                                                                                                                                             To     s
                                                                                                                             y                                                             Reyes
                                                                                                                          0
                                                                                                               C4@

                                                                                                                                            .......                              InVi�rness@-.,.
                                                                                      ..........     ... ..........

                                                                                              Jenner

                                                                                oss

                                                    0.... .

                            Sea Ranch

                                    V. ORGANIZATION, POWERS
                                    AND PROCEDURES

                                    INTRODUCTION

                                    This portion of the Ocean Coastline Planning Program has been directed to amplify-
                                    ing the specific policies and powers essential to achieving coastal goals. The next
                                    phase of the program should be addressed directly to the issues of inter-governmental
                                    and interagency relations as these involve the coastline and implementation of
                                    coastal policies. This chapter begins to address itself to these issues, especially as
                                    they relate to the appropriate locus of responsibility and the procedures which
                                    should be used.

                                    Individual jurisdictions with limited resources and growing financial needs have
                                    sought additional tax base. These actions have marked impacts on the environment
                                    which are often adverse to broad regional interests. This sequence of events has led
                                    to new attempts to institutionalize regional planning in the Bay Area. The conflict
                                    between local and regional interests and the resulting polarizations are nowhere
                                    more evident than along the Bay Region's coastline.

                                    Once the regional impact of local actions is acknowledged, the specific concerns
                                    are what new agencies, powers and procedures should be focused on regional issues.
                                    A related issue is the organization and relationships among existing State, regional
                                    and local agencies, many with responsibilities relating to the coastline. Hence, these
                                    three issues-organization, powers and procedures-are addressed successively in this
                                    chapter. However, the next phase of the Ocean Coastline Planning Program should:
                                    consider means by which authority would be shared among agencies; clarify respective
                                    rolas and powers; and make more specific recommendations on appropriate legisla-
                                    tive action which may be necessary. The intent of such an effort should be to comple-
                                    ment the coastal planning program embodied in the California Coastal Conserva-
                                    tion Act.

                                    Any discussion of implementing agencies relating to the California coastline must
                                    consider the implications of the currently operative Coastal Zone Conservation Act,
                                    with its State Coastal Commission and six regional commissions. That act was de-
                                    vised in part to provide a careful review of planning and organizational responses.
                                    One ultimate possibility is that the coastal plan to be submitted in 1976 may remain
                                    advisory only, with no new or continuing implementing entity proposed. Yet, such
                                    a possibility is unlikely; the past was imperfect and there is no assurance that simple
                                    exhortations to improve will suffice. Hence, the following discussion looks ahead, and
                                    suggests directions for appropriate follow-on coastal planning implementation for
                                    the San Francisco Bay Region's coastal area.

                                    A basic assumption upon which to posit an implementation approach is that there is
                                    a role to be played in planning the coastline by all levels of government-the nation,
                                    state, regions and localities (counties, cities and districts). The following is a general
                                    listing of the most preeminent interests of each of these levels. The crucial dis-
                                    claimer regarding such gross allocations is that each major function should be thought

                                                                    -52-

                         of as a bundle of "sub-functions", which could be allocated to several different levels.
                         Moreover, even for a particular sub-function, the respective responsibility (e.g.,
                         inventory, analysis@ planning, regulation, etc.) may differ. For that reason, the fol-
                         lowing should be construed only as that governmental level which should have the
                         most predominant -(and not exclusive) policy-making responsibility for those func-
                         tions which are distinctly coast-related. (Other governmental functions relating to social
                         and economic welfare are not considered here.)

                         Federal Predominance: international ship@ing, including the location of major harbors,
                         navigational facilities, offshore oil extraction, power generation, nuclear and other
                         facilities, ocean mineral resources and national parks and recreation areas.
                         State Predominance: land use (shoreline dependency), agricultural preservation,
                         aquatic wildlife habitats, water pollution control, air pollution control, state parks
                         and recreation areas, river flows and airport location.
                         Regional Predominance: channeling of growth, shoreline access, pedestrian trail
                         systems, vehicular and transportation access, terrestrial wildlife habitat conservation,
                         sedimentation and eutrophication, view preservation, solid waste disposal, water
                         supply and quality and dredging, filling control.
                         Local (Counties, Cities, DiAricts) Predominance: site planning, development design,
                         detailed land uses, population density, visual amenity and appearance, service levels,
                         community facilities, drainage, police and fire protection, local recreation, noise
                         pollution control, flood and seismic safety amelioration, public health and socio-
                         cultural environment.

                         04"NIZATWN
                         The agency designated to assume the ocean coastline planning function in the Bay,
                         Region after 1976 could take several possible forms. The possibilities include:
                         1 - A separate ocean coastline planning agency as a continuation of the Coastal Con-
                         servation Act Commissions or possibly as an agency tailored for the Bay Region,
                         similar to BCDC;
                         2 - A limited multi-purpose regional organization with a constituent ocean coastline
                         planning agency as one sub-unit; and
                         3 - A consolidated regional government with a single decision-making body but with a
                         coastline unit or department.

                         It is recommended that a limited multi-purpose regional organization with a coastal
                         planning and management subfusction be created in 1976.

                         A separate ocean coastline agency (or agencies) with its own policy-making board would
                         be able to exercise influence over coastal planning, primarily through planning and
                         regulatory powers. It would control land use, might be able to acquire property
                         interests and, through design review and site planning assistance, influence coastal
                         development. Two ocean coastline agencies presently exist for the Bay Area.

                         Such an independent agency would be forced to operate without benefit of a binding
                         regional growth policy. Internal decisions could be based on adopted regional planning
                         policy, but if the latter was not formally recognized, it wou.1d not provide needed

                                                                          -53-

                                   planning coordination. Existing special purpose agencies and districts operative in the
                                   coastal area would continue to make decisions in isolation, from overall regional
                                   policies though they might be regulated and constrained from independent action by
                                   some form of referral or ad hoc coordinative system. There would be a tendency for
                                   present interagency conflicts to remain which could act to inhibit a balanced presentation
                                   of issues to the public. This would put a premium on voluntary coordination and mutual
                                   assistance among the agencies. An independent ocean coastline agency, to be effective,
                                   would require substantial authority if the coastal plan is to be binding upon other public
                                   programs affecting the coastal area.

                                   Although a single-purpose coastline agency is necessary for this interim planning period,
                                   it is not the ideal arrangement. A permanent, separate coastline agency would tend to
                                   perpetuate the fragmented forms of regional decision-making that now exist and which
                                   do not always produce the most effective decisions. The need for a very close relation-
                                   ship between coastal conservation and overall regional growth policies is one of the
                                   most important findings of this study. In order to reduce the pressure for development
                                   on the coastline, such pressures must be channeled elsewhere. Responsibility for funding
                                   acquisition of major coastal land must be shared with the rest of the region, for
                                   intensive use of that coastline is not exclusive to those who live within a few miles
                                   of it. Any freeways, power lines, dams, and the like, even though they may start or be
                                   located well inland, must, if their effects are felt on the coastline, be controlled to
                                   reflect a coastal perspective. On the other hand, overriding regional needs must also be
                                   acknowledged.

                                   A second alternative is a consolidated regional government which would unify, under
                                   the responsibility of a regional legislature, all those authorities which presently act
                                   separately or are single purpose in nature. This form of government would have both
                                   the incentive and authority to place the Coastline Plan in the context of a larger
                                   regional plan. It would coordinate all acquisition, development and operating programs
                                   to support coastline policies, and could coordinate inland development with coastline
                                   programs. The activities of a regional legislature would attract wide public attention
                                   to regional issues. Within a broad structure, a coastline unit could develop specialized
                                   information and exercise certain planning and regulatory functions, but would not have
                                   a totally separate decision-making function.

                                   The third form of government, a limited multi-purpose regional organization, represents
                                   a coordinated approach. Such an organization, with a subordinate coastal agency, could
                                   combine the features of a separate coastline agency and a consolidated regional
                                   government. The constituent coastline agency would retain initiative over coastal planning
                                   policies. The limited multi-purpose regional organization would exercise a veto power,
                                   perform a coordinating function, and act as an appellate body in case of disputes. The
                                   constituent agencies would retain their own decision-makers, while the multi-purpose
                                   organization would carry out overall regional planning. A definite mechanism for
                                   securing coordination, airing and settling conflicts, and facilitating adjustments with
                                   other program agencies would then exist.

                                   Resources, common staff, and auxiliary services could be pooled and shared by con-
                                   stituent agencies. Interagency communication and coordination procedureswould be
                                   more effective than at present. Agency commitments to parochial purposes would be

                                                               -54-

                       balanced by the ability of the regional body to exercise a veto and probably, under
                       some circumstances, require actions.

                       An alternative to the limited multi-purpose regional organization approach would be
                       a simple "umbrella , superimposed above existing regional agencies. Each of the
                       latter would retain autonomy as well as equal and direct access to the regional deci-
                       sion-making body. However, although coordination and collaboration between agencies
                       would be voluntary, certain types of programs and actions might be mandated by the
                       regional agency for joint consideration.

                       The ocean coastline agency would remain in existence as a separate entity, and likely
                       would be party to regional agency resolutions of any conflicts with a regional trans-
                       portation agency, regional planning agency, water quality control agency, regional
                       park agency, agencies involved with service extensions, local agency formation com-
                       missions, etc.

                       POWERS AND PROCEDURES FOR IMPLEMENTATION

                       A prior section of this report described the planning and regulatory policies which
                       should be utilized to determine the policies and achieve the goals previously
                       indicated. In this section, the powers which are proposed to implement these policies
                       are discussed.

                       Public Farilities Powers and Procedures

                       A basic premise of the accessibility and service level policies is that control over
                       highways, sewer and water facilities means control over growth. To achieve this control
                       means that several agencies which now undertake their own planning or which have
                       regulatory powers must be brought more directly,within the coastal planning process.
                       They include the District Office of the Division of Highways, the Local Agency Forma-
                       tion Commissions of each county, the State and Regional Water Quality Control
                       Boards and the Bay Area Sewage Services Agency.

                       In order for this effort to be undertaken, controls must be exercised by these and
                       other agencies. Yet, under present law, such power often is inadequate. Hence, ap-
                       propriate modifications in the law should be made to ensure that powers are avai I-
                       able to achieve these goals, or at least that there are no mandates in the laws which
                       prevent limitations on expansion of services and facilities or the monitoring of
                       operations.
                       Governmental influence over decisions of the State Division of Highways is limited to
                       the control over the closing of streets, the review of highways across coastline Coves
                       by the Resources Agency and the State Lands Commission and assorted*and generally
                       incidental powers of the Public Util'ities Commission, the Park Commission and others.
                       However, the Division of Highways itself makes the key determination - the selection of
                       routes and their designs. The routeFselection procedure is not fully described in-State.
                       law; it is within the area of administrative guidelines. Those stops which are described
                       in State law'include: adoption of a resolution by the commission spelling out the pro-
                       cedure to be used- to study a route; authorization for the study; consultation with
                       local jurisdictions; provision for special requests by public agencies for public hearings;
                       transmission by the local jurisdiction of information it wishes presented; public

                                                                               _55-

                                    hearings; recommendation by the department to the commission; route adoptions;
                                    and execution of freeway agreements.
                                    Clearly the missing link in this series of steps is some form of requirement for referral
                                    of proposals to regional agencies concerned with environmental planning for their
                                    review and approval. Hence, it is recommended that in the coastal area, any propo-
                                    sal for development of a highway extension be the subject of a development appli-
                                    cation which would be reviewed for its conformity with the coastline plan. Obviously,
                                    the influence over the State Division of Highways would be greater if the coastline
                                    plan were presented and adopted in a single statewide plan by a State agency, which
                                    would have some parity with the State Highway Commission and the Division of
                                    Highways. However, many of the most crucial decisions are made at the District
                                    (regional) 'level, processed upwards, and after approval, processed downwards. Thus,
                                    there would be a measure of parity if route referral for approval by the Coastal Agency
                                    were required early in the route selection and design process. At present, of course,
                                    the council of governments with A-95 review power has authority to comment
                                    on all proposals involving federal funding. However, these are advisory and not
                                    binding on the funding agency, although if a regional plan supports rejection of a
                                    highway plan, it would be difficult to ignore. Some highways involve only state funds,
                                    however, and here the role of the regional planning agency is unclear.

                                    Under an amendment to State Law, a new Department of Transportation began on
                                    July 1, 1973, and is engaged in an effort to formulate a State Transportation Plan
                                    by 1976. The parallel with the Coastal Commission effort is obvious. The State
                                    Transportation Board is mandated to work with existing regional and local agencies,
                                    although it is anticipated that there will be a later transition to statutory regional
                                    agencies with powers to implement the Plan. By July, 1974, there is to be a statewide
                                    report on transportation goals, objectives and policies. By April 1, 1975, the
                                    regional transportation plans are to be adopted, and by January 1, 1976, the Califor-
                                    nia Transportation Plan is to be adopted. This planning approach should benefit the
                                    State Legislature in deciding on permanent solutions to both Coastal and Transpor-
                                    tation Planning.
                                    There is some hope that the State would coordinate or merge these two functions.
                                    When this occurs, the need for planning of automobile access to constrain develop-
                                    ment pressures and to limit adverse environmental impacts will occur without elabor-
                                    ate intergovernmental (and sometimes ineffective) mechanisms.
                                    The Local Agency Formation Commissions make final decisions on creation or annexa-
                                    tion of districts involved with sewer and water facilities. Although many LAFCs work
                                    closely with their planning commissions and departments in establishing "spheres
                                    of influence" and in making decisions on local agency formation, other inputs are
                                    needed for good planning from the environmental standpoint. To achieve this end,
                                    it is proposed that joint meetings of local agency formation commissions and staffs
                                    in the coastal counties with the coastal planning commissions and staffs be held.
                                    The purpose will be to start the process of adopting the present guidelines for review
                                    of new formations and annexations, as coastline plans are developed as part of the
                                    coastal planning process.

                                                                        -56-

                               Rellulatory Powers and Procedures

                               Development Review
                               Clearly, the regional agency designated to carry out ocean coastline planning must be
                               granted the power of regulation. This power should be shared among governments.
                               Regulation of coastal development should be on a case-by-case review basis, with
                               decisions guided by and subject to detailed planning criteria. The procedure could
                               resemble the conditional use permit procedure common in local zoning, although
                               the criteria proposed to guide decisions are in some cases more precise, and some-
                               times more limiting, than the usual criteria for conditional uses.
                               The case-by-case method is the only one that will work now on the coast. The coastal
                               area is too diverse-in location, open space values, geology, ecology and economics-
                               to be subject to rigid rules intended to cover all situations. For some questions, such
                               as what building techniques are required for hazard areas, information is not and can-
                               not be available except on a project-by-project, area-by-area basis. Flexibility to deal
                               with particular physical conditions and particular objectives, and flexibility to adjust
                               to change, call for local approval with regional review. The regional plan would need
                               continual updating because of new information and in some cases, new needs.
                               Further, a special procedure should be available for lessening or eliminating any
                               standard or supporting strategies in extenuating circumstances involving a site location,
                               plan or design not fully anticipated.
                               To facilitate such review the coastal agency should be required to: include in the
                               adopted coastal plan an adequate review procedure; hold hearings on each applica-
                               tion with sufficient notice; make specific findings which relate to applicable cri-
                               teria; and allow appeals of each ruling to a state-wide coastal agency, an overall
                               regional agency, or to the courts.
                               This system would combine planning and regulation. This should result in both better
                               planning and better regulation. Part of the advantage of this review process will be
                               to build up a file of increasingly more precise data and policy. The results of many
                               individual plan and permit decisions will gradually determine many larger policy
                               issues,

                               The review criteria to be applied are those set forth in the previous chapter on sup-
                               porting strategies. These criteria are proposed to relate to al I new development.
                               They will be used not only in review procedures, but also to assist in internal site
                               planning by public agencies and private developers.
                               Although regional review based upon precise criteria wi I I be the basic form of regu-
                               lation, selective use of the "specific plan" in critical areas also is proposed. These
                               plans should be prepared by the coastal organization jointly with local agencies. '
                               Such plans may include proposed regulations limiting1the use and management of
                               certain areas. This procedure is riot limited by the restraints on zoning, e.g., uni-
                               formity of application, complex procedures, minimum size of zones, etc. Hence,
                               the State Planning Law provisions should be used as precedents in framing an equi-
                               valent power for the coastal agency. Such plans either could be directly binding
                               11 zoning--type" regulation, or could more closely resemble state agency administrative
                               review.

                                                                             -57-

                                     To avoid the potential inequities arising from prior substantial commitments of
                                     resources, the proposed criteria dealing with dependency of uses upon coastal
                                     resources, or public benefit, i.e., maximum extent of coverage (landscape alteration)
                                     and requirements for tourist-oriented, recreational or transient accommodations
                                     and facilities, should not be applicable to pre-existing subdivided lots of record
                                     which previously have been fully provided with all necessary infrastructure improve-
                                     ments.

                                     Requiring dedication for public use of the coastline has a precedent in the practice
                                     of many cities and counties which require subdividers to dedicate land for parks to
                                     serve the residential population (or, where such dedication of land is infeasible, to
                                     pay a charge in lieu of dedication). A developer should be required to dedicate a
                                     certain percentage of his coastline for public access and use, or to pay an in-lieu fee.
                                     Such fees in lieu of actual land dedication have been upheld to offset the costs of
                                     neighborhood parks in subdivisions when the payment bears a reasonable relation-
                                     ship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of
                                     the subdivision. Provisions requiring public access from a highway to the ocean as
                                     part of subdivision approval are now included in the Public Resources Code of California.
                                     Amendments to the Subdivision Map Act enacted in 1971 provide new criteria for
                                     the regulation of subdivisions. A new section requires the governing body of a city
                                     or county to deny approval 0 a final or tentative subdivision map upon making any
                                     of the specified findings. One of the grounds for denial is that the subdivision will
                                     conflict with existing public easements for access through or use of the property.
                                     Consideration is restricted to easements of record and easements established by
                                     final judgment, and also allows the governing body to approve the proposed subdivision
                                     if it finds that alternate e&ements are available. The 1971 amendments did not amend
                                     or repeal the existing provisions of the Subdivision Map Act which require reasonable
                                     public access to the tidelands as a condition of approval for all proposed subdivisions
                                     located on the coastline. However, it is now required that if existing alternative
                                     public access were not available within a reasonable distance of the subdivision, the
                                     subdivider must dedicate new access routes. The city or county has the responsibility
                                     for determining what constitutes reasonable public access based upon the size of the
                                     subdivision, the likelihood of trespass, the uses appropriate to the types of coastline
                                     and the mode of travel used on the access route. However, the statute does not
                                     require a subdivision to provide for public recreational use of the lands above the
                                     line of mean high tide. Such authority should be vested in a coastal agency.

                                     Intergovernmental Alternatives for Regulation
                                     There are five issue areas in designing the administrative components of an inter-
                                     governmental regulatory system for the coastline:
                                     1 .  Regional standards for local adoption or regional model ordinances for local
                                     enactment.

                                     2.   Regional standards for local enforcement or regional regulatory supersedence
                                     for special aspects or areas.

                                                                     -58-

                           3.   Regional zoning ordinances form and regional plan-based review permit procedure.
                           4.   Referrals to other governmental levels for comment, prior to decision-making.
                           5.   Dual permit or single permit procedures.
                           Listed below are a series of alternatives, proceeding from the least to the most
                           regional authority. These are proposed for consideration at expiration of the Coastal
                           Conservation Act in 1976.

                           1.   REGIONAL STANDARDS - LOCAL ENFORCEMENT (Regional minimum
                           standards, local adoption, local (only) administration and enforcement and region.Rl
                           information referral and potential revocation)
                           A regional coastal agency (RCA) could adopt ordinances or policies which contain
                           minimum performance standards to be adopted in ordinance form and enforced by
                           local governing bodies. The local bodies would be permitted to adopt ordinances
                           containing more stringent development standards than those contained in RCA ordi-
                           nances. However, no development, as defined in RCA ordinances, would be author-
                           ized by the local governing body until the following conditions were met:
                           a) A development permit application filed. with and approved by the local governing
                           body. In order for the local governing body to issue a valid development permit,
                           the local body must have enacted an ordinance that contains standards as stringent
                           as those provided in the RCA ordinance and must have such an ordinance approved
                           by the RCA. Any changes, additions or deletions of an approved local ordinance
                           must be approved by the FICA before a valid permit would be issued.
                           b) All local permit applications, together with all plans, study results and other infor-
                           mation, would be filed simultaneously with the RCA and the local governing, body.
                           The RCA would be empowered to comment on and make recommendations to the
                           local governing body regarding the proposed development. All major development
                           or ordinance changes would require notice and public hearing provisions.
                           The RCA would be authorized to conduct investigations of construction activities
                           to determine whether such construction was conducted in compliance with standards
                           contained in the RCA ordinances. The RCA would take appropriate action when
                           standards were not met.

                           All variance applications sought from local governing bodies from standards contained
                           in the RCA ordinances would be approved both by the local governing body and
                           the RCA. Provisions for public hearings would be included on such applications.
                           Notice and public hearing provisions would be built into any revocation proceedings
                           to insure that the applicant's tights would be protected.

                           11. REGIONAL STANDARDS'- LOCAL ENFORCEMENT -REGIONAL SUPER-
                           SEDENCE (Regional minimum standards, local adoption and enforcement, regional
                           permit referral and potential revocation, but including special area and aspect supersedence)

                                                                            _59-

                                 The FICA would adopt ordinances or policies containing minimum performance stan-
                                 dards to be enacted and enforced by local governing bodies. The local governing bodies
                                 would be permitted to adopt ordinances and regulations containing more stringent
                                 standards than those contained in FICA ordinances. In no instance would they be
                                 permitted to approve development applications with standards less stringent than
                                 those in FICA ordinances. There could be a provision for all variances from RCA stan-
                                 dards to be approved both by the local governing body and the RCA.

                                 The difference from Alternative I would be that the FICA would have the power to
                                 adopt special regulations for applications in specific geographic areas and policy
                                 areas determined by the RCA to be of regional significance. These regulations would
                                 supersede all other standards of the RCA and all local ordinances. These provisions
                                 would be enforced directly by the RCA.
                                 The basic intention would be to divide review and approval functions between the
                                 RCA and local governing bodies. The RCA would review and approve or disapprove
                                 certain kinds or types of development applications and the local governing bodies
                                 would review and approve or disapprove other kinds of development applications.
                                 The intention would be to allocate development control responsibilities among
                                 levels of government best able to respond to the issues presented. In all instances,
                                 all interested parties would have the chance to review and comment upon all develop-
                                 ment applications.

                                 This approach could have two variations. The first variation would involve approval
                                 authority. The approving agency (either the RCA or the local governing body)
                                 would depend on the size and nature of the development proposal. Thus, in certain
                                 vulnerable areas and for certain size projects, the FICA would make the determination;
                                 in other instances, the determination would be made by the local body. In either
                                 case, performance standards developed by RCA would apply. The clearest example of
                                 this may be taken from the Coastal Conservation Act, where there is an exclusion
                                 for projects costing less than $7,500 (in essence a relinquishment of regional authority
                                 to the local agency).
                                 The second variation may be taken from the approach of the Metropolitan Council
                                 of Minneapolis/St. Paul. There certain functions were determined to be so important
                                 and critical to the region, that the metropolitan government assumed total control
                                 over them. Similarly in the coastal area, development, grading and excavation,
                                 and land alteration projects in certain critical areas might automatically be considered
                                 "regional". The same might be true of developments over a certain size, A state
                                 authority could be provided, if desired, to determine statewide coastal interest or
                                 reconcile regional coastal agency plans and/or hear appeals from FICA divisions.

                                 111. REGIONAL ORDINANCES AND ENFORCEMENT AND LOCAL ORDINANCES
                                 AND ENFORCEMENT (Local ordinances, local administration, referral of ordinances
                                 to regional, regional ordinances and regional enforcement)
                                 Two separate agencies, one local and one regional, would operate in a parallel but
                                 independent fashion, each with a separate set of ordinances to be administered by

                                                                      -60-

                           the respective agency or level of government. Decisions of the RCA would supersede
                           those made -at the local level. The RCA would have the authority to enforce-and-police
                           development within the permit area to insure that RCA ordinances and decisions
                           were, respected.
                           A detailed set of provisions would be included to enable the RCA to take appropriate
                           legal and administrative action to enforce its standards whenever violations of their
                           provisions occur. Such violations could include a local governing body issuing deve-
                           lopment permits without having received approval from the RCA of its ordinances,
                           could involve development permits not conforming to provisions of RCA ordinances,
                           or activity occuring that does not comply with the requirements of the permit.
                           Appropriate action might include the power of the RCA to revoke such permits.
                           The two-agency concept, now prescribed by the Coastal Conservation Act, involves
                           this dual permit procedure under which the local agency as well as the regional
                           coastal agency must both approve a development permit. Both agencies review the
                           entire application and review at least some of the same features of the applications
                           (but from somewhat different perspectives); both have veto power over the proposed
                           project.

                           IV. REGIONAL ORDINANCES AND ENFORCEMENT (Regional ordinance
                           adoption, regional enforcement, local agency information referral)
                           The RCA would assume all control and jurisdiction over issuance of development per-
                           mits. The RCA would adopt its own development ordinances. It would have respon-
                           sibility for receiving, evaluating, reviewing, approving and imposing conditions on
                           such development permits. Copies of all such applications, together with all plans,
                           drawings, reports of studies, etc., filed with the applications would be sent to the
                           local governing body for their review and comment. Such local governing bodies
                           would be able to make suggestions for additional conditions to be imposed on such
                           developments, as wel I as recommending approval or disapproval.
                           Regulation would be on a case-by-case basis. Permits for development approval
                           would be issued by the RCA after a decision was made on required findings. The
                           decision of the RCA would be guided by, and subject to, the Coastline Plan and
                           other detailed planning criteria and, in some instances, by precise controls and
                           "decision-rules".

                           The major difference between this and I is that the RCA could allow a development
                           (e.g., one reflecting an overriding regional need) which a local government wished
                           to prevent.

                           Recommendations
                           It is recommended that Option 11, above, be developed. The review process proposed
                           would be carried out, in a coordinated fashion, by the local agency and the regional
                           coastal agency (RCA). An attempt would be made to create* a review process in
                           which: 1) The local agency would-have the principal responsibility'for conducting
                           the reviews in less vulnerable areas; 2) information refined by both the local agency

                                                                                -61-

                                     and the RCA would be required from the beginning; 3) The regional agency would
                                     supersede the authority of the local agency for certain areas or functions.

                                     In the less vulnerable areas, the local agency would carry out the review,'the regional
                                     agency would comment to the local agency in regard to what regional issues might
                                     be involved, and the local agency would render the decision. Only in those instances
                                     where the regional agency felt that regional values might have been hurt by the local
                                     decision would the regional agency enter (and perhaps pre-empt) the picture. (There
                                     would be a requirement for initial consultation between the local and regional
                                     agencies, which means that the local agency would be aware long in advance that
                                     they would be challenged if certain regional policies are violated.) An advantage of
                                     this procedure would be closeness of the approving body to the public most intimately
                                     involved.

                                     At the outset, the regional coastal agency would submit to local agencies having regu-
                                     latory powers i n the coastal area the f ol lowi ng:

                                     1 .  Minimum standards for mandatory incorporation into local ordinances and ad-
                                     ministrative procedures. These would pertain only to matters of larger than local
                                     significance. The RCA would retain review power over local ordinances, review pro-
                                     cesses, and coastal development having larger than local significance or impact.

                                     2.   Recommended standards for optional incorporation into local ordinances and
                                     administrative procedures. These would pertain to matters of local importance, but
                                     would be guidelines for the local level to maintenance of a quality coastal environment.

                                     3.   Notification of areas or subject-matters of pre-emption by the regional agency.
                                     These issues and areas would be so critical that the regional agency might or should
                                     pre-empt. It is likely that in terms of areas, this should include at least the immediate
                                     shoreline as well as natural resource conservation areas. In terms of subject matters, it
                                     is anticipated that those issues presently requiring a 2/3 vote for approval under the
                                     Coastal Conservation Act would be pre-empted: i.e., developments interferring with
                                     line of sight toward the sea from the highway; filling, dredging, or alteration of bodies
                                     of water or marshes, restrictions on public access; adverse impacts of water quality,-
                                     and beach or recreation area reduction.

                                     Local agencies of course would retain the right to adopt standards which are more
                                     stringent than those of the RCA, except when such standards would effectively
                                     prohibit uses of overriding benefit to the region or State,
                                     The diagram on the following page is a sample of the review procedure which could
                                     be used with this alternative,

                        PROPOSED COASTAL REVIEW PROCESS

                          APPLICANT                                    LOCAL AGENCY                                   REGIONAL COASTAL AGENCY                                      STATE COASTAL AGENCY
                                                                                                                      (REGIONAL LIMITED GOV"T)                                      ISTATE LAND USE AGENCY)

                            OMPLE TE 31               Submits              REC IVES                 Submits                       R CEIV    S ONE
                          COPIES OF                  3 Copies              3CO IES                  One Copy                          P      L
                           R
                                                                                                    Submits One Copy                                                                          RECEIVES ONE
                                                                                                                                                                                              PROPOSAL

                                                                             05                                            rD-ETE R M I N E@
                                                                                                Notifies Of                                   0
                                                                                                Regional In     t             REGIONAL( ASTAL
                                                                                                                           UTEREST, IF ANY                                                          \V
                                                                                                                                                                                         DETERMINESSTATE]
                                                                                                                                                                                              T'
                                                                                                                                                                                              T
                                                                                                                               Notifies of State Interest            ---fINTEREST IF ANY
                                                                1
                                                                DETERMINATION
                                                                OF LOCAL STAFF
                                                                RECOMMENDATION
                                                                BASED ON REGIONAL
                                                                AND STATE STANDARDS

                          RECEIVES                                     HEARINGS, REVIEWS                      ____\jRECEIVES NOTIFICATION
                          NOTIFICATION                                 ETC. BY LOCAL                                  /LOF DECISI(
                        [OF DECISION                                   DECISION-MAKING
                                                                       BODY, AND DECISION
                                                                       R
                                                      z                @.@N @E. 2 E                            z
                          RE         E                                 NO REGIONAL OR                                 \rRECEIVES NOTIFICATION
                                  'V @TION                                   INTEREST                                          DECISH
                          NOCEIFICA                                    STATE                                       .1 /12F
                          OF REFERRAL                                  ---------- --- OR ---- - ---- -              -
                                                                       REGIONAL OR STATE               -Jo
                                                                       I

                                                                                                                                  DECISION ON
                                                                                                                                  ADHERENCE                                                   REVIEWS FILE
                                                                                                                                  TO REGIONAL                                                 FOR CONSISTENCY
                                                                                                                                  AND STATE                    Transmits File                 WITH STATE
                                                                                                                                                                    and                       INTEREST
                                                                                                                                  Z=ARDS                       Regional Findings

                          RECEIVES                              RECEIVES NOTIFICATION
                          NOTIFICATION              Notifies    OF AGREEMENT OR                              Transmits        (RCA DECISION             V             May Transmit
                          OF DECISION                           DISAGREEMENT WITH                                             LON DEVELOPMENT)\                       Comments
                                                                LOCAL DECISION
                                                                                                                                                                            __"R EOCE 01
                                                                                                                                                                                              P PO'
                                                                                                                                                                                              @R

                                                                                        6R
                                                                                   A    L
                                                                                        EST

                                                                                                ATE
                                                                                        S       T
                                                                                        E3
                                                                       0REG'O
                                                                       ATE   INTER
                                                                             0
                                                                             AL         R
                                                                       T     ST  P
                                                                       IN@ERE      R EN

                                                                                                                                                                                              REV IEWS  F ILI
                                                                                                                                                                                  _  EF NSIST
                                                                                                                                                                                              OR CO
                                                                                                                                                                                              IT  HSTATE
                                                                                                                                                                                              I       ST
                                                                                                                                                                                              NTERE@
                        @N.bfi-                                                                 @AION
                                                                                                T
                                                                                                ITHI

                                                                             -63-

                                  Acquisition Powers and Procedures
                                  Acquisition of real property is one of the ways of carrying out the coastal plan, but
                                  there is need to reduce both the initial and the long-term costs of acquiring appropri-
                                  ate properties.
                                  The coastal agency could acquire coastal area lands by eminent domain and doubtless
                                  meet the "public use" test of the State Constitution. Advance acquisition, the con-
                                  demnation of land far in advance for need, or "land banking" is somewhat novel,
                                  but has usually been upheld by the courts. It would be a useful tool to influence
                                  development and save public money by buying in advance of inflation of the land.
                                  Excess condemnation, the taking of more land than is needed for the public facility
                                  involved in the taking, is an important tool. It could enable the coastal agency to
                                  acquire properties that are surplus to the needs of other governmental agencies,
                                  especially the State Division of Highways and the Department of Parks and Re-
                                  creation.

                                  Acquisition of "development rights" or "conservation easements" could be a useful
                                  tool in carrying out the coastline plan, but there are serious problems in the use of
                                  this method. One problem is how to define the rights taken and those retained by
                                  the owner. A second is whether development rights in the end cost significantly
                                  less than the full fee. Experience varies, but suggests that there is a meaningful saving
                                  only when the rights or easements are acquired before the land is ripe for development.
                                  At best, such rights will usually have to be sold voluntarily by private owners;
                                  condemnation of such rights is particularly difficult.
                                  Devices for gradual acquisition of fee ownership are valuable in reducing the initial
                                  outlay of funds that might be required to carry out the plan, even with a strong pro-
                                  gram of regulation. Purchasing an option or requiring owners to notify the coastal
                                  organization whenever they propose to develop or to sell their properties will afford
                                  insurance against the buildup of development pressures that regulatory powers would
                                  have difficulty withstanding. Purchase at the request of landowners may be used as a
                                  means of deferring, until development would otherwise have occurred, the payment
                                  of compensation (if there is to be any) for denial of development permission. Such
                                  11 compensation" should be accompanied by an equivalent "development charge" upon
                                  owners who did obtain development permission. Installment purchase can only work
                                  in voluntary sales, but it can be an effective way of spreading the cost of acquiring
                                  private properties over a number of years.

                                  Acquisition followed by disposition allows the public to control use of properties
                                  to a greater extent than allowed by usual forms of regulation, while offering the oppor-
                                  tunity to the public to recover some of the increase in the value of the properties
                                  that results from public actions or expenditures. Urban renewal as a tool has been used
                                  for improving shoreline areas in many parts of the State.

                                  There is a section of the California Community Redevelopment Law declaring as a
                                  matter of State policy that a seashore is a "blighted area" for purposes of redevelop-
                                  ment when characterized by a decline in the coastal environment, including recrea-
                                  tional and aesthetic values, or when there is a need for public beach areas and public

                                                            -64.

                 access thereto. Coastline property acquired by a redevelopment agency shall be
                 used only for.public- purposes. Presumably, thisqualification will be given a strict
                 interpretation as distinguished from the broader general \@velfare concept used to
                 sustain other uses and transfers of condemned property. With this qualification, there
                 does not appear to be a great potential for changing the use of such lands, even if
                 this Were a key objective, which in most instances it is not.

                 However, the authorization still allows the use of this tool for financing open space
                 by tax increment financing. It is becoming increasingly popular in California.
                 Under this approach, if major undeveloped areas on the coastline were declared re-
                 development areas, any increase in taxation arising from a rise in assessed valuation
                 after the actuating date could be pledged to retire bonds floated to acquire key open
                 lands.  It is suggested that this approach might be widely used in areas where somd'
                 development is acceptable but when the development could have an adverse impatt
                 on its surroundings. It would be fitting for such improvements to provide the
                 resources to ameliorate their own impact.

                                        APPENDIX: Survey and Analysis
                                        of Existing Environmental Conditions

                                        INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF METHOD

                                        This appendix deals with the opportunities for, and the constraints to, man's use of
                                        the physical resources of the coastal areas of Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco and San
                                        Mateo Counties. Included are descriptions of the data collected, the maps prepared,
                                        the analyses conducted and the method used to determine these opportunities and
                                        constraints. Combined with responses from the public and from the various ABAG
                                        committees, the regional coastal resource itself, as described in the data collection
                                        and analysis, provided the basis for the preparation of the hierarchy of regional
                                        coastal policies, ranging from the regional coastal policies to the specific locational
                                        policies and the review criteria.

                                                                         Wildl! e
                                                                         Habitat

                                                                         Recreation
                                                                         Resources                        Open Space Values
                                                                                                          and Constraints

                                                                         Agricultural
                                                                         Resources

                                                                         Hazards to
                                                                         Public Safety

                                        Within the limitations of the study, data available through April, 1972 reflecting the
                                        diversity of coastal resources was assembled and committed to a series of maps
                                        available through the Association of Bay Area Governments.
                                        Due to the very short duration of this study and the regional context within which the
                                        issues and data were analyzed, certain adjustments were made in the data collection
                                        and analysis, For example, certain ownerships or existing state of development in
                                        some portions of the coastal area represent constraints that cannot be reversed within
                                        the foreseeable future. These were subject to less-detailed analysis so that key issues
                                        might be addressed more fully. As an illustration, Point Reyes National Seashore is
                                        an exclusive responsibility of the Federal government, and so the data collection and

                                                               -66-

                analysis was not conducted in the same depth as for private land holdings sUbject to
                development pressure. Similarly, less analysis has been performed in urbanized areas,
                and more attention directed to outlying areas where preservation and proper utiliza-
                tion of major open space resources are still possible.

                Information from these work maps, as appropriate, was transferred to a series of
                Conservation and Development Opportunities and Constraints (CDOC)maps, all
                reproducible and at a scale of 1:62,500, as follows: Wildlife Habitat, Recreation
                Resources, Agricultural Resources, Environmental Hazards to Public Safety.

                Selected information from the CDOC series, based upon the criteria in the regional
                coastal policies and the analysis of the physical coastal resources, was used in the
                preparation of the Values and Constraints map in Chapter I I I of this report.

                BASIC DATA MAPPING

                Map                                                                          Scale

                Visual Resources                                                           1:24,000

                Ocean Coastal Marine Resources                                             1:62,500

                Scientific and Educational Study Areas                                     1:62,500

                Acknowledged Recreation Resources                                          1:62,500

                Climate and Agricultural Soils                                             1:62,500

                Vegetation and Grazing Soils                                               1:62,500

                Slope                                                                      1:62,500

                Seismic Response                                                           1:62,500

                Earth Stability and Flood Hazard                                           1:62,500

                Known Problem Soils                                                        1:125,000

                Seismic Sea Wave Hazard                                                    1:125,000

                Land Use                                                                   1:62,500

                Infrastructure                                                             1:62,500

                Land Use Controls                                                          1:62,500

                For each of the basic data maps there is a brief description of the data input and
                references for the sources of each data type. It should be noted that data for this
                study was collected and analyzed during the period January through April, 1972.

                                                                        -67-

                                 Visual Resources

                                 Several analyses were made by the consultants to determine the presence of ocean-
                                 related views and the nature of these views. Three distinctive situations were con-
                                 sidered: views from the major roadways adjoining the coast; views from significant
                                 viewing locations such as public parks and beaches; and views from lands within the
                                 coastal planning area.

                                 Views from the roadway were documented in the field by use of recording sheets
                                 employing the following notations:

                                 Position. The view position was recorded as to the general vertical and horizontal
                                 distance from the coastline.

                                 Extent of View. Three categories- i m mediate (less than 300 feet), intermediate (300
                                 feet to approximately 2,500 feet), and distant (beyond 2,500 feet)-were used.

                                 Type of View. The presence of panoramic, local or glimpsed views or absences of views.

                                 Character of View. The character of the view, both to the coastal side and upland
                                 side was recorded noting whether the respective areas were in a natural state (either
                                 forested, grassland, brush, or special category such as marsh), under cultivation or
                                 in an urbanized or semi-urbanized state.

                                 View Components. Key elements composing the view such as beaches, trees, dunes,
                                 marine facilities, residences, etc. were noted.

                                 Overall Rating. Finally an overall ranking employing four values - excellent, good,
                                 fair and poor - was assigned.
                                 The notations on the field sheets were supplemented by color 35mm slides and tape-
                                 recorded commentaries, and the information transferred to U. S. Geological Survey
                                 maps. On the same sheets, land areas from which coastal views are present were
                                 also mapped to provide a composite documentation of major coastal-related views.

                                 Ocean Coastal Marine Resources
                                 This mapping includes coastal bathymetry and eight coastal wildlife habitat types.
                                 The numbers following each of the data types indicates the specific reference,
                                 agency, or individual from which the information was derived.

                                 Beaches, sand dunes, and spits (4, 5)
                                 Muclflats-K 5)
                                 Salt Marshes (4, 5)
                                 Freshwater Marshes (2, 4, 5)
                                 Estuaries and Lagoons (21 4, 5, 6)
                                 Major Rocky Interticlal Areas (1, 3, 5, 7)
                                 Shellfish Culture Areas (7)
                                 Anadromous Fishes Spawning Grounds (7)
                                 Bathymetry (5)

                                                         -68-

                   Publications

                   1.   Hedgpeth, Joel W., Seashore Life -of the San Francisco Bay Region and the
                   Coast of Northern California.. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1970
                   2.   State of California, Resources Agency. Protected Waterways Plan. 1971.

                   3.   State of California, Resources Agency', Department of Fish and Game. A
                   Summary of the Marine Environment from Fort Ross, Sonoma County to Point
                   Lobos, Monterey County. 1968.
                   4.   State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Navigation and Ocean
                   Development, Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan. General Inventory, Land Use-
                   Site Characteristics. .1971.

                   5.   United States, Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Miscellaneous
                   7.5 Minute Series (Topographic) Quadrangles for the study area.

                   Personal Communications

                   6.   Gregg, Harold. Marin Conservation League, San Rafael, California. January
                   1972.

                   7.   Smith, Emil. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and
                   Game. January, 1972.

                   Scientific and Educational Study Areas
                   This data collection includes all known existing scientific and educational uses and
                   proposals for use by public agencies, institutions and responsible persons in the scien-
                   tific and educational communities for setting aside areas of wildlife habitat or unique
                   natural features for protection and study. The numbers following each of the data
                   types indicate the specific reference, agency or individual from which the information
                   was derived.

                   Areas designated by the California Natural Areas Coordinating Committee as impor-
                   tant scientific and education areas (6)
                   Unusual or unique geological features designated by the U. S. Department of the
                   Interior, Geological Survey (5)
                   Proposed marine biological reserves and areas needed within the next 15 years for
                   educational purposes as designated by California colleges and universities (1,,2)
                   Public and private areas presently available to California colleges and universities
                   for educational use (1)

                   Marine reserves and other existing preserved marine habitat lands (excluding public
                   park lands) (4, 7)
                   Candidate b-avaand-estaadesfoc-ma@ine'.ee@sff-ve status as designated by the State of
                   California, Department of Fish and Game (1)

                                                                     -69-

                                Proposals for coastal landscape preservation by the State of California, Department
                                of Parks and Recreation (3),
                                Areas now used for educational purposes, but not presently included in formal
                                proposals for preservation (4, 7)
                                Wildlife waterways as identified by the State of California, Resources Agency (2)

                                Publications

                                1   Rechnitzer, Andreas B., Marine Sciences in California Institutions of Higher
                                Education. State of California, Coordinating Council for Higher Education. Report
                                No. 1037. 1969.
                                2.  State of California, Resources Agency, Protected Waterways Plan. 1971.
                                3.  State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation,
                                California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan. 197 1.

                                Personal Communications
                                4.  Arkley, Dr. Rodney, University of California, Berkeley, February, 1972.
                                5.  Gulliver, Rachel. Research Assistant, United States Department of the Interior,
                                Geological Survey. January, 1972.
                                6.  Hood, Leslie, Director, California Natural Area Coordinating Committee.
                                January, 1972.
                                7.  Smith, Edmund, Director, Pacific Marine Station, University of the Pacific.
                                January, 1972.

                                Acknowledged Recreation Resources
                                All areas of known public ownership that have possible recreation value were mapped
                                even though not all are presently in recreational use. All streams that have potential
                                for canoeing or steelhead or salmon spawning are shown. Recreation resource areas
                                identified by the various Federal, State and local'agencies concerned with recrea-
                                tion (as evidenced by proposals for public acquisition for recreational or landscape
                                preservation purposes) were included.

                                Publications

                                County of Marin, Planning. Department, Marin County Parks and Recreation Plan
                                1990. 1965.

                                County of San Mateo, Regional Planning Committee, Parks and Open Space: A
                                Program for San Mateo County. June, 1968.

                                                              -70@

                          Ways and Means Committee of the Regional Planning Committee, Parks
                    and Open $pace: Financing the Plan. January, 197 1.
                    State of California, Resources Agency, California Protected Waterwaysplan.
                    February, 1971.
                           Department of Fish and Game, California Fish and Wildlife Plan. 1966.

                          Department of Parks and Recreation, California Coastline Preservation and
                    Recreation Plan. June, 197 1.

                    Troost, Carl, Editor, "Canoeing, Kayaking and Rafting in California", in California
                    Protected Waterways Plan, State of Cal ifornia, Resources Agency. February, 197 1.

                    Personal Communication

                    Vail, Wesley, County of Sonoma, Planning Department. January, 1972.

                    Climate and Agricultural Soils

                    Recently-completed plantclimate information was used to determine the inland
                    extent of the climate zone most frequently identified as necessary to the economic
                    production of coasta I -dependent specialty vegetable crops. The soil survey for each
                    county was reviewed to determine those soils most capable of producing good
                    yields of these specialty crops-artichokes, broccoli, brussels sprouts and cauliflower.
                    The best production areas for these crops in this region are in San Mateo County, have
                    soils of the Tunitas - Lockwood and Watsonville - Elkhorn soil associations, and are
                    within the Maritime plantclimate zone. These soil and climate conditions were
                    compared to the remaining counties, and generally similar soil and climate conditions
                    were selected for inclusion within the prime agricultural lands classification. The
                    next - best areas for the production of these crops also have soils of the Tunitas-
                    Lockwood and Watsonville-Elkhorn soil associations, but are in the Coastal plant-
                    climate zone, just inland from the Maritime zone.

                    Publications
                    Association of Bay Area Governments, General Soil Map. 1966

                          Land Capability Classification (map). 1966.
                    United States, Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey,
                    San Mateo Area, California, - 1954.
                    ---,A Supplement to Soil Survey, San Mateo Area, California. - 1969.
                    ---,Report for General Soil Map, Marin. County, California. 1967.

                                                                           -71-

                                 Personal. Communications

                                 Gilbert, Dewayne E., Extension Bioclimatologist, Department of Agricultural En-
                                 gineering, Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, Davis. Personal
                                 communication and working maps of plantclimates for Sonoma, Marin, San Francisco
                                 and San Mateo Counties. February, 1972.
                                 Kimball, Marston H., Extension Bioclimatologist (retired), Agricultural Extension
                                 Service, University of California, Davis. January, 1972.

                                 Miller, Vernon C., Soil Scientist, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
                                 Conservation Service. Sonoma County. Personal communication and mimeographs
                                 of selected soil series descriptions. March, 1972.

                                 Vegetation and Grazing Soils
                                 Mapped soils information together with the county soil surveys were reviewed to
                                 determine those soils most suited to grazing operations. These were grouped as
                                 follows:

                                 Best Grazing Soils
                                 Pajaro Association (Sonoma, Marin)
                                 Yorkville-Suther Association (Sonoma)
                                 Pleasanton-Zamora Association (Marin)
                                 Sweeney-Mindego Association (San Mateo)

                                 Good Grazing Soils
                                 Rohnervil le- Kneeland Association (Sonoma, Marin)
                                 Steinbeck-Los Osos Association (Sonoma, Marin)
                                 Los Osos Association (Marin)
                                 Santa Lucia Association (Marin)
                                 Lobitos-Gazos Association (San Mateo)
                                 Los Gatos-Hull Association (San Mateo)
                                 Tierra-Colma Association (San Mateo)
                                 Watsonville-Elkhorn Association (San Mateo)
                                 Adequate Grazing Soils
                                 Hugo-Laughlin- Josephine Association,    Sonoma.)
                                 Miramar Association (Marin, San Mateo)
                                 Laugh I i n-Parrish Association (Marin)
                                 Miramar-Sheridan Association (San Mateo)
                                 Soils Not Suitable for Grazing
                                 Because of management constraints or general unsuitability for grazing, all other soil
                                 associations were included in this category.

                                                               -72-

                      Publications.

                      Associatiori of Bay Area Governments, General Soil Map. 1966.
                             Land Capability Classification (map). 1966.

                      United States, Department of Agriculture, Soi I Conservation Service, Soil Survey,
                      San Mateo Area, California, 1954.

                             A Supplement to Soil Survey, San Mateo Area, California. 1969.
                             Report for General Soil Map, Marin County,Ca/ifornia. 1967.

                      Personal Communication

                      Miller, Vernon C., Soil Scientist, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil
                      Conservation Service, Sonoma County. Personal cornmunication and mimeographs
                      of selected soil series descriptions. March, 1972.
                      As a refinement to the soils interpretations, vegetation data was also added to deter-
                      mine those suitable soils upon which grazing would be feasible without extensive
                      range improvement. All areas of grasses were included.

                      Publications

                      County of San Mateo, Forest Resources Study Committee, Forest Resources of San
                      Mateo County, Plate 11, General Vegetative Types. 1971.
                      County of Sonoma, Planning Department, Spring, 1971 Land Use Overlay for 7Y2
                      Minute U.S.G.S. Orthophoto Quadrangle, various sheets for study area. Advance
                      copies, subject to change. May, 1972.
                      United States, Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Miscellaneous 7.5
                      Minute Series (Topographic) Quadrangles for the study area.
                      ---, Menlo Park, California. Aerial color infrared transparencies taken in March
                      and June, 1971.

                      Slope
                      Slope information is- useful for broadly determining suitability of specific sites for
                      various activities, as well as an important factor in the analysis of hazards to public-
                      safety that Is detailed below. Preliminary slope information for the study area was
                      available from the U. S'. Geological Survey. From that information, maps delineating
                      slope in six categories were prepared by the consultants: 0 - 5%, 5 - 15%, 15 - 30%,
                      30 - 50%, 50 - 70%, and over 70%. The United States Department of the Interior,
                      Geological Survey; Topographic Division, i'n Menlo Park, California supplied advance
                      copies of photo-mechanically-clerived color separations of selected slope categories
                      for this analysis.

                                                                      -73-

                                Seismic Response

                                All of the geologic formations within the area studied are subject to seismic effects
                                since they are generally adjacent to a major active fault and are therefore in close
                                proximity to epicentral zones of strong earthquakes. Within this area physical resis-
                                tance to seismic shaking is of greater importance than proximity to a fault trace or
                                zone.

                                The formations, vibrating in response to an earthquake, are considered a hazard in
                                two respects. The shaking may be transmitted to man-made structures, causing damage
                                or failbre, or landslicling may be induced on those sloping areas which are suscep-
                                tible to failure. The latter areas are largely accounted for in the "critical formations
                                at 30'Yo+ slope" category on the Earth Stability and Flood Hazard map.
                                Based on available generalized information, three categories have been described:
                                high, medium and low or unknown relative seismic response.
                                High Relative Response: "mud", "bay mud", "marine deposits: mud, gritty mud,
                                silt and sand in Bodega Head quadrangle", older artificial fills, landslides.
                                Moderate Relative Response: alluvium, old alluvium, slope wash and debris, sand,
                                sand dunes, beaches, older beaches, terrace deposits.
                                Low or Unknown Relative Response: all other formations.
                                The ranking was based on references by professional geologists to specific formations
                                with known engineering properties. Therefore, many other formations not ranked as
                                high or moderate may exhibit noteworthy seismic response. It was assumed that the
                                formations noted in the literature are, however, the more commonly critical ones.

                                Publications

                                Rice, Salem J. and Rudolph G. Strand. Preliminary Report to Accompany Geologic
                                and Slope Stability maps of the Tennessee Valley, LUcas Valley and North Coastal
                                Areas. State of California, Division of Mines & Geology, San Francisco, California.
                                1971.
                                Schlocker, J., M. G. Bonilla and D. H. Radbruch. Geology of the San Francisco North
                                Quadrapole, California. Misc. Geologic Investigations, Map 1 - 272, U. S. Department
                                of I rif-er-i o@, -Ge-&I 6_g@ical Su'rve'y-, Men lo Park, Cal ifo r-nia. 195-8.-

                                Earth Stability and Flood Hazard

                                This mapping. included: known critical formations, landslides, known and estimated
                                f lood-pr6ne areas and relative erosion susceptibility of coastal geologic formations.

                                Known Critical Formations and Landslides
                                A critical formation was defined as one which is known to be significantly susceptible
                                to mass slope failure such as landsliding as a result of natural weathering and clegrada-

                                                            -74-

                    tion. "Significantly susceptible" formations are those which exhibit low or moderate                               Ice
                    slope stability characteristics in terms of engineering properties or are known by
                    field and map study to have failed in notable area-wide amounts.
                    Some of the important and/or larger of these formations are:
                    Landslides
                    Merced Formation
                    Monterey Shale (Marin County)
                    Purisima Formation
                    Santa Cruz Mudstone
                    Franciscan Melange or Sheared Franciscan
                    In reality, in all formations, some amount of slope failure is possible under a given
                    set of conditions. Construction activities by man can significantly increase failure
                    -particularly in the critical formations.

                    Publications

                    Blake, M. C., Judith Terry Smith, Carl M. Wentworth and Robert H. Wright. Pre-
                    11m1nary Geologic Map of Western Sonoma County and Northernmost Marin County,
                    California. Basic Data Contribution No. 12, United States Department of the I n-
                    terior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1971.
                    Bonilla, M. G. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle
                    and Part of the Hunter's Point Quadrangle, California (Misc. Field Studies Map MF-
                    311) Basic Data Contribution No. 29, United States Department of the Interior,
                    Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1971.
                    Brabb, Earl E. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Central Santa Cruz Mountains, Calif-
                    ornia. Basic Data Contribution No. 6, United States Department of the Interior,
                    Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1970.
                    Gluskoter, Harold T. Geology of a Portion of Western Marin County, California.
                    Map Sheet 11, State of California, Division of Mines & Geology, San Francisco,
                    California. 1969.

                    Huffman, Michael E. PreliminaryMap - Landslidesand Related Deposits, Russian
                    River to Fort Ross. , Advance information received prior to publication, incomplete
                    and subject to change. State of California'Resources Agency, Department of Con-
                    servation, Division of Mines and Geology. March, 1972.
                    Rice, Salem J. and Rudolph G. Strand. Preliminary Report to Accompany Geologic
                    and SlopeStability maps of the -Tennessee vallek, Lucas Valley and.North. Coastal
                    Areas. State of California, Division of Mines & Geology, San Francisco, Cal ifornia.
                    1971.

                    Schlocker, J., M. G. Bonilla:and D. H. Radbruch. Geology of the San Francisco North
                    Quadrangle, California. Misc. Geologic Investigations, Map 1-272, United States
                    Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1958.

                                                                       -75-

                              Personal Communications

                              Brabb, Earl. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo
                              Park, California. March, 1972.

                              Cummings, Jon C., Professbr and Chairman, Department of Geology, California
                              State College, Hayward, California. 1970. '
                              Rice, Salem J., State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco,
                              California. 1972.

                              Wentworth, Carl. United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey.
                              January and March, 1972.

                              Known Flood Prone Areas

                              Known flood prone areas were derived from published sources. These were assumed
                              based on known storm-flood records or "project storm" figures. The minimum
                              watershed area for which flood prone areas were recorded is 25 square miles in
                              urban areas and 250 square miles in rural areas.

                              Publications

                              United States Army Engineer District, San Francisco, California, Corps of Engineers.
                              Report on Floods of December, 1964 in Northern California Coastal Streams.
                              Volume 111. December, 1965.
                              United States, Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay
                              Region Environment and Resources Planning Study, Flood-Prone Areas Between
                              Point Reyes Station and Bolinas, Marin County, California. Basic Data Contribution
                              19. 1971.

                              ---, Flood-Prone Areas of Coastal San Mateo County, California. Basic Data
                              Contribution 20. 1971.

                              Estimated Flood Prone Areas
                              Where map data on inland flooding in such larger watersheds did not extend westerly
                              to the coastal-outlet of major streams, an estimation was made based on location of
                              alluvial deposits' and study of. topographic information.
                              In the case of smaller watersheds only flat'(0-5%) areas of alluvium (from geology
                              map) are shown. It was assumed that these are potential flood areas since all allu-
                              vium must be water-borne. The evidencewas sufficient to assume this to be the case
                              until more detailed information can prove otherwise.
                              Where such alluvial deposits meet a flat terrace deposit, it is probable that flooding
                              has occurred or'can take place even though not enough alluvium exists. to be recorded
                              on the geologist's map. Therefore, an estimated area of appropriate width was

                                                            -76-

                  shown along the stream channel to indicate a potential flood area. Here again evi-
                  dence was sufficient to assume this to be the case until more specific study can
                  prove otherwise.

                  Publications

                  Blake, M. C., Judith Terry Smith, Carl M. Wentworth and Robert H. Wright.
                  Preliminary Geologic Map of Western Sonoma County and Northernmost Marin
                  County, California, Basic Data Contribution No. 12, United States Department of
                  Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1971.

                  Bonilla, M. G. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle
                  and Part of the Hunter's Point Quadrangle, California (M isc. F iel d Stud ies Ma p M F-
                  31.1). Basic Data Contribution No. 29, United States Department of Interior, Geo-
                 ,logical Survey, Menlo Park, California. 197 1.

                  Brabb, Earl E. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Central Santa Cruz Mountains,
                  California. Basic Data Contribution No. 6, United States Department of Interior,
                  Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1970, *
                  Gluskoter, Harold T. Geology of a Portion of Western Marin County, California,
                  Map Sheet 11, State of California, Division of Mines & Geology, San Francisco,
                  California. 1969.

                  Schlocker, J., M. G. Bonilla and D. H. Radbruch. Geology of the San Francisco
                  North Quadrangle, California, Misc. Geologic Investigations, Map 1-272, United
                  States Department of Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1958.

                  Relative Erosion Susceptibility of Coastal Geologic Formations
                  This mapping Was based upon interpretations of generalized mapped geQLogic for-
                  mations and conceptual models under development by researchers af-the U. S. Geological
                  Survey. Their studies are limited to a theoretical estimation of susceptibility of in-
                  dividual formations to erosion and not to erosion rates. The concept centers on the
                  inherent erosion resistance of the formation and the presence of related theoretically
                  static protective elements which could condition wave impact, such as shallow fore-
                  shores and rocky tidepool areas.

                  Sand budget, the critical element in determining cliff retreat rate, is not included.
                  Appropri8tO data was not available and the budget might be considerably altered
                  by land uses within any Watershed. Since the'nature of such land use changes may
                  not be predictable, policies based'on this classification system should include appro-
                  priate information as the changes occur, @specifying how they might alter the sand
                  budget, and therefore indirectly the rate of cliff retreat..

                  Erosion susceptibility was ranked and mapped according to the following sets of
                  conditions:

                  High Susceptibility to Coastal Erosion:
                  Landslides and other slope failures

                                                                    -77-

                               Weak formations- unprotected
                               Weak formations- protected, but at an active fault
                               Moderately resistant formations, unprotected at an active fault

                               Moderate Susceptibility to Coastal Erosion:

                               Weak formations- protected
                               Moderately resistant formations -protected, but at an active fault
                               Moderately resistant and resistant formations- unprotected
                               Resistant fo rmatio ns-u n protected at an active fault

                               Low Susceptibility to Coastal Erosion:
                               Moderately resistant and resistant formations@ protected
                               Erosion resistance of geologic formations used in the erosion susceptibility rankings
                               above are as follows:

                               Weak Formations: Franciscan melange and Sheared Franciscan sandstone, the Merced
                               and Purisima Formations, areas of landslides and other slope failures, alluvium,
                               slope wash, terrace deposits and sand dunes

                               Moderately Resistant Formations: all formations not considered "Weak" or "Resistant"

                               Resistant Formations: formations that consist largely of chert, granite, limestone
                               or similar rocks

                               Publications

                               Blake, M. C.. Judith Terry Smith, Carl M. Wentworth and Robert H. Wright.
                               Preliminary Geologic Map of Western Sonoma County and Northernmost Marin
                               County, California, Basic Data Contribution No. 12, United States Department of
                               Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1971.
                               Bonilla, M. G. Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South Quadrangle
                               and Part o f the Hun ter's Poin t Quadrangle, California (M i s c. F i e I d S t u d i es M ap
                               MF-31 1). Basic Data Contribution No. 29, United States Department of Interior
                               Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1971.
                               Brabb, Earl E. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Central Santa Cruz Mountains,
                               California, Basic Data Contribution No. 6, United States Department of Interior
                               Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1970.
                               Gluskoter, Harold T. Geology of a Portion of Western.Marin Coun'ty, California,
                               Map Sheet 11, State of California, Division of Mines & Geology, San Francisco,
                               California. 1969.

                               Schlocker, J., M. G. Bonilla and D.H. Radbruch. Geology of the San Francisco North.
                               Quadrangle, California, Misc. Geologic Investigations, Map 1-272, United States
                               Department of Interior Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. 1958.

                                                             -78-

                   Personal Communications
                   Lajoie, Kenneth. United Sta'tes Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,
                   Menlo Park, California. January and February, 1972.
                   Lajoie, Kenneth and John Tinsley. United States Department of the Interior, Geo-
                   logical Survey. March, 1972.

                   Known Problem Soils

                   In spite of the generality of the soil mapping upon which this interpretation was
                   based, it appears possible to select zones in which soil characteristics represent an
                   unusual hazard and/or significant economic constraint,to structural development
                   or appear particularly susceptible to damage from physical impacts. These inter-
                   pretations were derived from the individual county soil reports from the Soil Con-
                   servation Service, backed by the consultant's knowledge of specific field situations,
                   and mapped at the soil association level.

                   In general, it was assumed that all soils on slopes 30% or greater represent at least a
                   moderate erosion hazard and therefore a significant, though not absolute, economic
                   as well as environmental constraint to construction. The known problems soils were
                   categorized as follows:
                   Extreme soil problems; these include steep eroded loarns over dense clay subsoils
                   and terrace escarpments, which- are associated with landslid ing and therefore repre-
                   sent the most significant soils constraint.
                   High soil problems: these include soils with an unusually high erosion potential,
                   and are areas that should be subject to policies designed to minimize these effects
                   should construction be allowed.
                   Medium soil problems: these are very poorly-drained soils or soils having a very high
                   potential for wind erosion. Both of these situations suggest delicate ecological
                   balances as well as economic constraints to construction.

                   Low soil problems: all others.

                   Publications

                   Association of Bay Area Governments, General Soil Map. 1966.
                   United States, Department of Agriculture, Soi I Conservation Service, Soil Survey,
                   San Mateo Area, California. 1954.

                        A Supplement to Soil Survey, San Mateo Area,. California. 1969.
                   ---,Report for General.Soil Map, Marin. County, California. 1966,
                         Report for General,Soil Map, San Francisco County, California, 1966.
                         Report for General Soil Map, Sonoma County, California. 1966.

                                                                        -79-

                               Seismic Sea Wave Hazard

                               This mapping indicates those coastal sections within which seismic sea waves could
                               be expected to encroach inland. The distance and configuration of runup are not
                               shown. The mapping was based on information derived from a study then underway
                               by scientists at the U. S. Geological Survey. In that study, the following criteria
                               were used:

                               A 20-foot runup line was assumed; the 20 foot elevation from the Geological Survey's
                               7.5 Minute, 1:24,000 scale Quadrangles was delineated as the potential runup line
                               along open coastline; this runup assumption has been modified as local bathymetric
                               conditions would affect wave energy; all possible oceanward directions of wave arrival
                               were assumed; depth of inundation was not shown or estimated.

                               Publications

                               Ritter, John R. and William R. Dupre, Maps Showing Areas of Potential Inundation
                               by Tsunamis in the San Francisco Bay Region, California, advance information
                               received prior to publication and subject to change. United States Department of
                               Interior, Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.

                               Land Use

                               Existing land use patterns have been determined through collection of information
                               provided by various public agencies.

                               Publications.

                               Association of Bay Area Governments, Preliminary Regional Plan Report, Land
                               Use, 1965 (map). 1966.
                                     Ocean Coastline Study, Map 5: Land Use, 1965. 1970.
                               County of San Mateo, Planning Commission, land use map (untitled, undated,
                               1    5,000').
                               County of Sonoma, Planning Department, Spring 1971 Land Use Overlay for 7Y2
                               Minute U.S.G.S. Orthophoto Quadrangle, advance copies, subject to change. May,
                               1972.

                               State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Navigation and Ocean Develop-
                               ment, Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan. General Inventory, Land Use-SiteCharacteris-
                               tics. 1971.

                               Infrastructure

                               Information regarding the jurisdictions and facilities of the numerous sewer and
                               water districts, as well as the locations of existing and proposed roads and.highways
                               was collected and mapped.

                                                          -80-

                 Publications
                 Co unty of San Mateo, Map of Sanitary Sewerage ServiceAreas and Existing Facilities
                 Oll = 5,000'). 1970.
                 City and County of San Francisco, Department of Public Works, Bureau of
                 Engineering, sewer services map (untitled). 1970.
                 City and County of San Francisco, Water, Department, Diagram of System.
                 Undated.
                 Coastside County Water District, District Boundary and Service Area Map. 1972.
                 Daly City, service area boundary and District Boundary (sewer service). undated.
                 Daly City, Municipal Water System and Dimond Public Utility District, Water
                 System Map, 1 " = 500', 1970.

                 Frahm, Edier & Associates, Half Moon Bay Basin Water Pollution Control Study,
                 Figures I and 11.

                 North Coast County Water District, Boundary Map, with water system added.
                 February, 1972.

                 State of California, Business and Transportation Agency, Department of Public
                 Works, Division of Highways, State Highway Map, 1971.
                       District IV, miscellaneous Route Adoption Maps for proposed State Highways.

                 United States Department.of the Interior. Geological Survey, Map Showing Areas
                 Serviced by Municipal and Private Sewerage Agencies, San Francisco Bay Region,
                 1970.

                 ---, Map Showing Areas Serviced by Municipal and Private Water-Distribution
                 Agencies, San Francisco Bay Region, 1970.

                 Personal Communications

                 City of Pacifica, Personal Communication and map of proposed construction of
                 sewerage facil_ities. March, 1972.
                 Coast Springs Water Company, Personal Communication and map of services.
                 March, 1972.

                 Coun-ty of San Mateo, personal communication and work map showing water dis-
                 tricts and service area 0 ='5,000'). February, 1972.

                 County of Sonoma, personal communication with water district and water company
                 boundaries (approximate) map, 1: 125,000. March, 1972.

                 Duck Cove Water Company, Personal Communication, February, 1972.

                                Jenner Water System, Personal Communication and map of services. March, 1972.
                                Marin Municipal Water District, Personal Communication and map of District. March,
                                1972.

                                Olema Water System, Personal Communication and map of system. March, 1972.

                                Land Use Controls

                                Zoning and agricultural preserve (Land Conservation Act of 1965) lands information
                                was made available by the County Planning departments. All of the counties involved
                                in this study maintain zoning classification systems, but the differences among the
                                ordinances proved significant. A working classification was prepared to assist the
                                consultants in comparing the implications of current zoning for the coastal area.
                                This was based upon the intent, expressed and implied, of the individual zoning
                                categories and their respective definitions.

                                Publications

                                City of Half Moon Bay, Zoning Plan Map, undated.
                                City of Pacifica, Municipal Code, Chapter 4, Title 9, Zoning (includes maps).
                                undated.

                                County of Marin, Planning Department, Marin County Agricultural Preserves
                                (map, 1:48,000). April, 1970.
                                County of Marin, Planning Department, zoning maps for: Bolinas, Dillon Beach,
                                Inverness, Marshall, Muir Beach, Nicasio, Olema, Point Reyes Station and Inverness
                                Park, San Geronimo Valley, Sti,-ison Beach and Tornales (1" = 300').
                                County of San Mateo, Agricultural Preserves (map, 1 " = 5000") 1971-1972.
                                County of Sonoma, Planning Department, Agricultural Preserves (map), April,
                                1971.

                                      miscellaneous Composite Zoning Maps for south Sonoma County coastal
                                area. 1972.

                                Personal Communication

                                County of San Mateo, Planning Commission. Personal communication and work map
                                of zoh i ng, 1 5,000'. February, 1972.

                                                            -82-

                 CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

                 Pertinent and selected information from the thematic work maps described above
                 was compiled into the following Conservation and Development Opportunities and
                 Constraints (CDOC) map series:

                 Wildlife Habitats
                 Recreation Resources
                 Agricultural Resources
                 Environmental Hazards to Public Safety

                 The data selected and the method of determination for each of the CDOC maps
                 are described in the sections that follow.

                 Wildlife Habitats

                 Three zones are mapped: 1) marine and coastal wildlife habitats, 2)primary habitat
                 impact areas, and 3) secondary habitat impact areas.

                 Zone 11- Wildlife Habitats

                 Included in this zone are important coastal bays and estuaries, mudflats, shellfish
                 beds, salt and fresh water marshes, major rocky interticlal areas, beaches, sand dunes,
                 sand spits and important steelhead and salmon spawning streams, as shown on the
                 Ocean Coastal Marine Resource work map, as well as on the work map, Scientific and
                 Educational Study Areas.

                 Zone I I - Primary Impact Areas                                                                                          t
                 The primary impact areas identified are associated with the various water-related coastal
                 resources. The health or quality of these resources is specifically dependent upon
                 the land use and management activities employed within the watersheds-a watershed
                 being all the land area which drains into a stream or estuary. Within each watershed,
                 some lands are more critical, or can, if improperly managed, contribute to significant
                 degradation of *the marine resource quality. Two types of land areas were identified:
                 1) steep slopes immediately adjacent to the designated resource, and 2) flat valley
                 areas having high water tables.
                 Steep slopes (30% or greater) adjacent to stream channels are critical for the main-
                 tenance of natural erosion and siltation processes. Poor agricultural practices, removal
                 of vegetation,'6r disruption of soil mantle in such areas can accelerate soil erosion
                 and increase siltation in the stream or estuary. Significant increases can lead to the
                 destruction of spawning areas for fish and shellfish beds for oysters.

                 Flat valley areas immediately adjacent to estuaries or streams, , especially those with
                 high water tables, are important for the maintenance Of water quality essential to the
                 protection of marine habitats. Critical physical attributes are salinity, temperature
                 and discharge. These can be easily affected by land uses in the flat valley areas which
                 involve chemical application,'waste discharges, water extraction (either from wells
                 or the resource itself), etc. thus suggesting the need for precise impact management
                 policies.

                                                                                 -83-

                                       Zone I I I - Secondary Impact Areas
                                       Two secondary impact areas were Identified 1) areas associatud with marine or
                                       water-related habitats, and 2) areas important for the protection of beaches and sand
                                       dunes.

                                       Entire watersheds were identified as the secondary impact zone for the marine habi-
                                       tats. While Zone 11 represents critical impact areas, land use impacts on any of the
                                       lands draining to the resource will affect its quality. The watershed is an important
                                       impact zone because of the role that the hydrological system plays as agent for trans-
                                       port of pollutants or increased sediment loads from the area of changeto the marine
                                       habitat.

                                       An offshore area to the 10 fathom line was identified as an impact zone important
                                       for the protection of beaches. This is the maximum depth generally associated with
                                       littoral drift (the longshore transport of sand). The sand supply for beaches is de-
                                       rived from many sources, including stream sediment from erosion processes in the
                                       upland watersheds and coastal cliff erosion, and is carried by littoral movement,
                                       so man-made facilities within this zone frequently have had far-reaching effects.
                                       In many instances, the construction of breakwaters, groins, etc. has resulted in the
                                       disappearance of beaches due to the blocking of sand transport along the coast.

                                       Recreation Resources

                                       All recreation resources shown on the Acknowledged Recreation Resources data
                                       map were included, as well as areas identified by the consultants as having signifi-
                                       cant and vulnerable visual attributes or valuable landscape characteristics that
                                       appeared to be of regional public importance for recreational purposes.

                                       Agricultural Resources

                                       All areas identified on the Climate and Agricultural Soilsdata map as suitable for
                                       production of coasta I -dependent specialty vegetable crops and areas shown on the
                                       Vegetation and Grazing Soils data map as suitable for grazing.

                                       Environmental Hazards to Public Safety

                                       This is a generalized and interpretive composite of slope, seismic response, earth
                                       stability and flood hazard, known problem soils and seismic sea wave hazard.
                                       Much of the information included in the work maps is incomplete due to insufficient
                                       data availability. Thus, while this hazard determination was sufficiently precise for
                                       the establishment of regional policy zones, further, more-detailed studies may
                                       reveal small areas within these policy zones of lesser or greater hazard potential.
                                       The mapping was based on a threshold approach, wherein the presence of any one
                                       of the conditions of the following sets was considered sufficient to warrant inclu-
                                       sion of a given area in that category.

                                                          -84-

                  Severe Relative Hazard

                  Major landslides, slumps and other slope failures
                  Known critical formations, greater than 30% slope
                  Known active fault trace or zone
                  High relative seismic response
                  Known flood prone areas
                  High susceptibility to coastal erosion
                  Extreme soil problem areas

                  High Relative Hazard

                  Known critical formations at less than 30% slope
                  Other formations at greater than 30% slope
                  Moderate relative seismic response
                  Estimated flood prone areas
                  Moderate susceptibility to coastal erosion
                  High soil problem areas

                  Moderate Relative Hazard

                  Moderate soil problem areas
                  Other 5% to 30% slopes not included above

                  Low Relative Hazard

                  Other 0% to 5% slopes not included above

                  OPEN SPACE VALUES AND CONSTRAINTS

                  To determine the areas having the highest- open space value and most severe hazards
                  to public safety, selected information from the Conservation and Development
                  Opportunities and Constraints map series was combined into the Open Space
                  Values and Constraints 02p @in ChqpteLl I I of this report. Following is a list of informa-
                  tion selected from the CDOC map series for inclusion in that map.

                  Wildlife Habitats,
                  marine and coastal wildlife habitats
                  primary habitat impact areas

                  Recreation Resources
                  all areas mapped

                  Agricultural Resources
                  prime coasta I -dependent agricultural lands
                  lands suitable for grazing
                  Environmental Hazards to Public Safety
                  Severe relative hazards

                                                                  -85-

                                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

                                        To assist in preparation and review of this plan, ABAG
                                        assembled a Citizens AdVisory Committee and a Technical
                                        Advisory Committee. The Citizens Advisory Committee
                                        included several hundred persons who participated in one
                                        or more of the many public meetings held during prepara-
                                        tion of the plan. The Technical Advisory Committee in-
                                        cluded representatives from approximately 100 public
                                        agencies who were advised of the progress of the program
                                        and graciously responded with advice. In addition, many
                                        other citizens and organizations made significant contribu-
                                        tions to this planning effort. They and the members of the
                                        two advisory committees are far too numerous to mention
                                        individually, but their initiative, involvement, assistance
                                        and continuing interest are gratefully acknowledged.

                                        SEDWAY/COOKE PROJECT STAFF

                                        Paul Sedway, Partner-in-charge
                                        Thomas Cooke

                                        Darrell Meyer, Project Manager
                                        Jeffrey Grote
                                        Stephen H. Silverman
                                        Allan Lind
                                        Charles Stewart
                                        Maria Elena Romero
                                        Love Smith

                                      About The Amociation
                                      The Association of Bay Area Governments was created in January, 1961. It was founded in recognition
                                      of the fact that the physical, economic and social well-being of the entire region and its individual
                                      communities depends upon continuing, areawide cooperation and coordination of many policies, plans
                                      and services.

                                      The primary function of the Association is to provide the framework for dealing with regional problems
                                      on a cooperative, coordinated basis. The Association provides the means by which strong, vital units of
                                      city and county government work together in solving regional problems and in formulating and imple-
                                      menting regional conservation and development policies.

                                      Formal organization for the Association is provided by contractual agreement between the member
                                      cities and counties acting under the authority of the Joint Exercise of Powers Act of the State of
                                      California. Present membership includes seven counties and 85 cities representing collectively more
                                      than 96 per cent of the total Bay Area population.

                                      The major goal of the Association-is:. -to, develop and implement pol icies wh ich help local governments
                                      plan and act cohesively on issues of regional significance. The Association attempts to achieve this goal
                                      through four major strategies:

                                      The identification and study of the problems, functions and services of the San Francisco Bay
                                      metropolitan area, and the making of appropriate policy or action recommendations.

                                      The review of proposals for metropolitan or regional governmental functions and the development of
                                      appropriate policy or action recommendations.

                                      The coordination of planning activities of local and regional agencies.

                                      Such other metropolitan or regional functions as are determined by the Association to be appropriate
                                      for consideration.

                                      The Association is currently active in the following fields: regional growth policy; land use and trans-
                                      portation planning; airport planning; water, sewer and drainage planning; open space and parks
                                      planning; ocean coastline planning; regional housing and community development planning; criminal
                                      justice planning; regional information systems; urban growth.models; solid waste management; plan
                                      and project review.

                                      The Association's Comprehensive Regional Planning Program is designed to: maintain and improve the
                                      Regional Plan; prepare related special-element plans; continue the planning process; provide technical
                                      services to local jurisdictions; develop implementation measures to guide the future growth and
                                      development of the region; and assist local planning agencies in the preparation and implementation
                                      of local plans. A full-time planning staff works in cooperation with city, county, state, federal, and
                                      other area-wide planning agencies to develop, coordinate, and implement regional plans and programs.

                                      The Association's programs are financed by membership dues and special assessments and by grants
                                      in funds and services from other regional agencies and the state and federal governments.

                                           3 6668 00002 1271