lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2013) 1e5

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Coastal adaptation: The case of Ocean Beach, San Francisco

So-Min CheongUniversity of Kansas, Geography, 1475 Jayhawk Blvd, Lawrence, KS 66045, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online xxx

E-mail address: somin@ku.edu.

0964-5691/$ e see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.013

Please cite this article in press as: Cheong,(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoama

a b s t r a c t

This paper examines the way coastal adaptation at the local level works citing one of the more successfulcases of adaptation planning in Ocean Beach, San Francisco. Recent erosions that endangered SanFrancisco’s wastewater treatment system helped push coastal adaptation initiatives to produce the OceanBeach Master Plan. The plan included scenarios and trade-offs to engage multiple stakeholders includingthe San Francisco (SF) Public Utilities Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the National ParkService, the SF Department of Public Works, and the user groups of the beach. Investigation into theplanning process reveals the benefits of increased public awareness and partnerships as well as limi-tations of implementation and lack of longer-term solutions.

� 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

How does coastal adaptation at the local level work? Numerousnational and state adaptation plans emerge in the U.S. and othercountries in the face of climate change. Ideally, locals would usethem as guidelines to establish their own plans. However, morefrequently, locals stumble into adaptation planning in response tourgent local needs other than climate change. Reflective of thistrend is the case of Ocean Beach in San Francisco. It is consideredas one of the more successful local endeavors to plan for coastaladaptation at the local level, and, thus, is a good case to investigatein order to better understand how local adaptation unfolds. Thepaper starts with a description of the origins, stakeholders,drivers, and planning process of the Ocean Beach Master Plan. It isfollowed by a discussion of strengths and weaknesses of this localadaptation plan and lessons that can be transferred to otherlocations.

2. Method

This research adopts a case study method, and uses inductiveapproach to understand how locals adapt to coastal change. Ituses Ocean Beach as a case of coastal adaptation at the local level,and examines the characteristics and the content of its planningprocess. For data collection, semi-structured interviews with 14key stakeholders and planning staff were conducted in San

All rights reserved.

S.-M., Coastal adaptation: Thn.2013.10.013

Francisco in the fall of 2012. They concern the issues and stake-holder perspectives regarding the Ocean Beach Master Plan.More than 30 planning documents, articles, and newspaper re-ports that describe and analyze the planning process were alsoreviewed. The data were then divided into major categories andanalyzed in consideration of the benefits and limitations of theplan.

3. Results

3.1. Origins of the master plan

The goal of the Ocean Beach Master Plan is to examine all majoraspects of the beach for the next 50 years. This effort dovetailedplanning by San Francisco’s past twomayors. The Ocean Beach TaskForce established by Mayor Brown in March 2000 produced the2001 Ocean Beach Task Force Status Report, the 2002 Resolution001-02-COE 2002 e a guiding policy document for Ocean Beach,and the 2005 Ocean Beach-Great Highway Storm Damage Protec-tion Project (SFDPW and USACE, 2005). They summarized theerosion conditions at Ocean Beach and the results of the stake-holders’ meetings. They also described and evaluated each erosionsolution including retreat. In 2008, Mayor Newsom formed theOcean Beach Vision Council to develop a set of planning alterna-tives with a 30e40 year horizon for the entire five-mile stretch ofthe beach (San Francisco Environment, 2008; Surfrider Foundation,2009).

Subsequently, the San Francisco Planning and Urban ResearchAssociation (SPUR) took charge of the 2012 Ocean Beach Master

e case of Ocean Beach, San Francisco, Ocean & Coastal Management

Fig. 1. A map of Ocean Beach.

S.-M. Cheong / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2013) 1e52

Plan. The late Brian O’Neill, former superintendent of the GoldenGate National Recreation Area, identified SPUR as the right entity toconvene a wide variety of agencies and stakeholders at OceanBeach. This is because SPUR is well known as the major policyadvocate and planning consultancy in the city and is consideredneutral, with no stake in real estate. SPUR received funding fromthe California Coastal Conservancy, the San Francisco Public Utili-ties Commission, and the National Park Service to develop acomprehensive interagency master plan for Ocean Beach.

3.2. Key stakeholders

The most important stakeholders in the case of Ocean Beachplanning are those with a stake in real estate. The Public UtilitiesCommission owns the sewer infrastructure below the highway andhas a major stake in protecting its facility from erosion and sea-level rise (Fig. 2). Completed in 1993, the Oceanside Plant is thecity’s newest treatment facility located off the Great Highway nearthe San Francisco Zoo, and collects and treats both wastewater andstormwater in the same network of pipes (SFPUC, 2011).

The second funder, the National Park Service, owns the OceanBeach seaside as a part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.The transfer of ownership from the state to the federal governmentoccurred in 1972 (Rothman, 2002). The area covered by the Na-tional Park Service increased over time from 1,017 acres in 1875 to34,000 in 1972 to 80,000 acres in 2012. The beach, dunes, prome-nades, endangered species, and visitor access to the beach are un-der the supervision of the National Park Service. One incentive forthe National Park Service to be involved in Ocean Beach planning isthat the plan will help generate a vision to be part of the GeneralManagement Plan.

The third funder is the California Coastal Conservancy, whichcontributed $300,000 for planning and is under the guidance of theCalifornia Coastal Commission. Though the Commission is not anowner of Ocean Beach, it regulates the development of the beach byexercising its coastal permit jurisdiction over development pro-posed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust landsthrough the Local Coastal Programs (CCC, 2012). Local CoastalPrograms are basic planning tools used by local governments toguide development in the coastal zone. They specify appropriatelocation, type, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water,and are submitted to the Commission for review and approvalconsistent with Coastal Act requirements (CCC, 2012). The goal ofthe Commission in this case is to encourage long-term planning sothat the city does not practice temporary protection measures suchas rock revetments.

Among the othermajor stakeholders is the Department of PublicWorks. It providesmaintenance and emergency repairs on both cityand federal property. Cleaning streets, removing litter and debris,and building seawalls and armoring are the responsibilities of thedepartment (SFDPW, 2013). In the case of Ocean Beach, theDepartment of Public Works is responsible for maintaining theGreat Highway and the walkway along Ocean Beach betweenNoriega and Santiago Streets (Fig. 1). The walkway is protected by a2 500e3 000 foot long seawall (SAIC, 2010).The Department ofPublic Works has also built revetments or armor in response tostorm damage along the Great Highway near Sloat Boulevard (SAIC,2010).

The city’s Recreation and Park Department is another stake-holder, as it owns the land area from the Cliffhouse to the zoodthesliver of green from Lincoln to Sloatdand maintains parking lots,the Beach Chalet restaurant, and the zoo (Fig. 1). Themain incentivefor its participation in the plan is to see whether major changes tothe zoowill occur. In spite of some ownership by the Recreation andPark Department, Ocean Beach is not a priority for the department,

Please cite this article in press as: Cheong, S.-M., Coastal adaptation: Th(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.013

and its staff notes that it does not have funding to renovate orimplement any of the plan.

Other stakeholders are users of the beach such as surfers, bikers,and birdwatchers. They are open to environmental protectionvalues, and prefer to keep the beach as natural as possible. The Savethe Waves Coalition, Black Rock Arts Foundation, San FranciscoBicycle Coalition, Coalition to Save Ocean Beach, People for aGolden Gate National Recreation Area, Golden Gate Park Preser-vation Alliance, Golden Gate Audubon Society, San FranciscoZoological Society, and the Surfrider Foundation are themajor usersof Ocean Beach that participated in planning (Table 1). The SurfriderFoundation was especially vocal during the planning meetingsequipped with visual presentations.

e case of Ocean Beach, San Francisco, Ocean & Coastal Management

Table 1Key stakeholders

Name Role

CaliforniaCoastalCommission

Regulates the development anduse of the coastal zone

SF Dept ofRecreationand Parks

Owns/Manages multi-use trail,restrooms, most parking lots,and the Zoo property

SF PublicUtilitiesCommission

Owns/Manages Oceanside(sewage treatment) Plant, pumpstation and Transport Structuresunder the Great Highway

SF Departmentof Public Works

Maintains roadway and amenities,manages windblown sand, and implementscoastal protection measures

US Army Corpsof Engineers

Dredges Golden Gate Shipping Channel,placement of dredged sand

GGNRA (NationalPark Service)

Owns and manages the dunes, beach,O’Shaughnessy Promenade, and Sloatparking lot and restroom.

SF Departmentof City Planning

Administers the Western Shoreline Plan,the city’s Local Coastal Program (planfor the Coastal Zone)

SFMTA Manages Roadway and transit planningand operations

SF Zoological Society Holds the lease of Rec-Park property

S.-M. Cheong / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2013) 1e5 3

3.3. Drivers

Locals became more aware of coastal adaptation to hazards andsea-level rise after 1) severe erosion of bluffs during the 2010winter storm and 2) controversial coastal defenses such as rockrevetments (Fig. 2). Powerful storms hit the bluffs south of SloatBoulevard and eroded parking lots and the shoulder of the GreatHighway, leading to the partial closure of the highway (Berton andAllday, 2010). The Department of Public Works installed about 400feet of rock revetments to protect the wastewater treatment nearbyand asked the California Coastal Commission for permission toinstall hundreds of feet of new rock revetments and walls on thesouthern end of Ocean Beach to protect the Oceanside WaterPollution Control Plantda treatment facility just east of the GreatHighway that processes wastewater for the western part of the

Fig. 2. Rock revetments in Ocea

Please cite this article in press as: Cheong, S.-M., Coastal adaptation: Th(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.013

citydfrom coastal erosion (CCC, 2011). In addition, the Departmentof Public Works also wanted the California Coastal Commission toretroactively legalize stretches of rock walls that the city hadinstalled years ago without a permit (CCC, 2011). The Commissiondenied this request for a permit. The California Coastal ProtectionNetwork also filed a lawsuit against the city to contest perceivedcoastal resource destruction, and the city countersued (Buchanan,2011; Gaiser, 2011).

The timing of these incidents coincided with efforts to plan forthe future of Ocean Beach. They occurred while the Ocean BeachMaster Plan was being formulated and helped to expedite theprocess. The Public Utilities Commission needed a longer-term planto protect its facility, and the Department of Public Works’ role wasto develop a proactive plan to protect this infrastructure as well asto comply with the California Coastal Commission regulations.Accordingly, these series of events and funding from three differentagencies to plan for the Ocean Beachdthe Public Utilities Com-mission, the National Park Service, and California Coastal Con-servancydall came together to create an environment conducive tolocal adaptation planning.

3.4. Planning process

In charge of planning, SPUR aimed to broker a collective un-derstanding of the various interests involved and pursue a balancedapproach. With this goal in mind, SPUR tried to involve as manygroups and people as possible. It reached out to businesses andresidents, directors of city agencies, and elected officials, formedadvisory, steering, and technical committees, and coordinatedthree public workshops. The task was to get people to the table andarticulate tradeoffs (Table 2).

Eachworkshop lasted three to fourhours. SPUR tried todevelop aneutral language and translate technical terms. The participantswere working with different perceptions and characteristics ofstakeholders. SPUR staff mentions that an agency such as theDepartmentof PublicWorks is perceived to bedryandpoor inpubliccommunication. Ocean beach users who tend to be environmen-talists are sometimes interpreted as angry and uncompromising.Workshops provided venues for understanding one another’s workand addressing these (mis)perceptions (SPUR, 2012).

n Beach at Sloat Boulevard.

e case of Ocean Beach, San Francisco, Ocean & Coastal Management

Table 2Public workshops

Topic Location Attendance Overview

1 Public Open House:Understanding Ocean Beach

San Francisco Zoo, January2011

w150 “Understanding Ocean Beach” d open house, the consultant team set up a numberof informational and interactive stations and provided an overview of the site’sopportunities and constraints.

2 Test Scenarios Golden Gate Park SeniorCenter, June 2011

w60 A key element e test a wide range of options and explore their tradeoffs over a longtime period. The OBMP team developed four Test Scenarios to model the outcomesof very different approaches to managing Ocean Beach through 2100. Thesescenarios tested a wide variety of ideas from stakeholders and the public, andstructured technical analysis work, modeling singular goals to their extremes. Thescenarios, which are presented in Appendix B, were organized in four topics asfollows: 1) Maximum Habitat, 2) Maximum Recreation, 3) Maximum GreenInfrastructure, and 4) Maximum Infrastructure. The public was invited to respondwith hybrid scenarios of their own invention and to attempt to balance among themany competing priorities. The Test Scenarios thus not only tested differentmanagement strategies but were important public education tools, laying out thebig-picture tradeoffs at Ocean Beach.

3 Draft Recommendations Golden Gate Park SeniorCenter, October 2011

w60a The third public workshop presented a draft of the master plan recommendationsfor review and comment. During the workshop, participants were given aquestionnaire/survey to document their input. This survey was later made availableon the project’s website, where the consultant team was able to collect additionalfeedback regarding the draft master plan.

a Online & survey participants: 100.

S.-M. Cheong / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2013) 1e54

SPUR developed ideas and tools to engage stakeholders duringthe workshops. For instance, the first workshop was an open houseconsisting of conversations without formal presentations. Thesecond workshop presented extreme scenarios to test differentoptions and their long-term impact. The participants had to choosebetween the maximization of habitat, recreation, green infra-structure, or infrastructure. They then created hybrid scenarios tobetter understand the tradeoffs between these options. The thirdworkshop involved the presentation of the master plan draft fol-lowed by a questionnaire to gather feedback and suggestions fromthe stakeholders.

Throughout the process, the team sought to use every availablechannel for public engagement, from multilingual fliers to Twitter.SPUR’s website includes the entire public record of the project,including all workshop presentations, public feedback, press clip-pings, and other resources. Two digital animations were developedto explain complex technical processes in a clear, accessiblemanner. An online feedback tool, which allowed the public torespond to draft recommendations in a systematic and transparentfashion, was heavily used. SPUR drew on its extensive schedule ofpublic programming to host several panels and an exhibition at theUrban Center Gallery, further extending the project’s publicengagement (SPUR, 2012).

The plan resulted in six key moves ranging from removing orreducing the Great Highway to setting up a low-profile structure,beach nourishment, and a vegetation barrier (Grant 2011). Retreatis difficult because there is not much space left to move inland. Theexisting coastal space in Ocean Beach is arranged in the order ofwater-beach-revetment-road-zoo-houses, and structures could berelocated at best 100 feet, which is very little. The decision is ulti-mately between moving key infrastructure (e.g., sewer pipes) andflexible structures (e.g., roads). If implemented, this plan wouldexpose the tunnel that surrounds the wastewater treatment pipe infront of the road. The task then becomes protecting the tunnel frominundation.

4. Discussion

The benefits of the plan are several. The public process washelpful as many of the agencies involved required some public re-view and pubic input for their respective segment of Ocean Beach

Please cite this article in press as: Cheong, S.-M., Coastal adaptation: Th(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.013

planning. The National Park Service, for example, is required tohave mandatory public input if land use is discretionary. Otheragencies also needed to consult and discuss with stakeholdersbefore going to the California Coastal Commissionwith a long-termplan. Moreover, the plan offers a broad vision and a variety of op-tions. It has no jurisdictional boundaries and takes a holisticperspective. It gives a guideline on what to plan specifically in thefuture, and serves as a good starting point. A vision document withcommunity support is valuable.

The planning process provided stakeholders opportunities towork together and improve partnerships. It increased the number ofpeople on the same page unlike previous attempts at planning,which often fizzled out. Soon after the completion of the OceanBeach Master Plan, the National Park Service, the Public UtilitiesCommission, and the Department of Public Works cooperated andmoved excess sand from the north end to the eroded areas of thesouthend. This is partlybecause theNational Park Service, alonewasunable to solve the problem of sand blowing and overtopping sea-walls, and played a proactive role in building bridges with the city.

Given that problems facing Ocean Beach cannot be fixed onceand done with, breaking a big project into smaller segments isbetter because each agency can take care of one segment. Bybreaking down, the plan designates who is to do what as specifiedin the key moves of the plan. This organizational logic allows theplan to be implemented incrementally and independently. Somegoals can be achieved within one jurisdiction. If it is simply one bigproject, operations become too complicated and require that allagencies be involved and consider many compliances. It is difficult,in such a case, to coordinate with all the stakeholders. As such, it isbest if tasks are divided so that respective, single jurisdictions canhandle.

Several limitations also exist. This is a nonregulatory guidancedocument presenting SPUR’s policy recommendations at a con-ceptual level. Though it represents a plausible and vetted set ofconcepts, it does not have the force of law or public policy. Oneagency staff reiterated this point, saying that it is a conceptualframework rather than a master plan. The plan discusses severalkey areas, moves on to talk about opportunities and constraints,and offers ideas onwhat to do. However, it has not been technicallyevaluated nor adopted by the city according to a city official. Thus, itserves more as a vision by stakeholders than as a plan.

e case of Ocean Beach, San Francisco, Ocean & Coastal Management

S.-M. Cheong / Ocean & Coastal Management xxx (2013) 1e5 5

As a plan, the question is how to implement. Implementationefforts are underway after the completion of the plan. SPUR securedfunding from the same three organizations that financed the OceanBeach Master Plan. Its task is to conduct transportation analysis,coastal management framework, and open-space planning. None-theless, key moves of the plan need environmental clearance inaccordance with the California Environmental Quality Act andthe National Environmental Policy Act. They may also require acoastal development permit under the California Coastal Act.Reformulation of the sections of the plan to fit the requirementsand writing style of these environmental impact studies is neces-sary. Some fear that the implementation will be bogged down bythese environmental assessments. One recommendation from aCalifornia Coastal Commission staff is to have the plan adapted intothe Local Coastal Program so as to facilitate the permit process.

Another important issue is whether agencies have the fundingto carry out these extensive reviews or the components of the plan.Without technical and financial capabilities, the plan remainssimply a plan. In addition, individual organizations involved alsoneed to consider the plan in the context of the other priorities andneeds of the organization. The Public Utilities Commission, forinstance, has three plants in the city, and has to weigh whetherspending money on a plant by Ocean Beach is more important andurgent than replacing an older and degenerating plant on the otherside of the city.

Timing of implementation is also crucial. Some feel that becausethe vision is long-term, it will be difficult to keep people interested.Communities and stakeholders can change over time, and stake-holders are compelled to inform and convince the public of the planin the event of population shift. On the other hand, others maintainthat 50 years is too short a time period for this plan. It is better toconsider 100 years than 50 years, as 50 years can go by quickly, andplanning details and approvals alone can take up to 10 years.

Some longer-term solutions are absent. Though widely used,beach nourishment in the form of sand transfer is a temporarysolution to the problems of erosion and sea-level rise. In the case ofOcean Beach, the Department of Public Works started with rockrevetments, then moved on to sand bags and now sand manage-ment. Sand management entails transferring sand from the northend, with plans to get additional sand by transporting sand dredgedfrom the shipping channel. The current sand transfer of 70,000cubic feet from one side of the beach to the other side can extendthe bluff to about fifty feet andmay last a season. A newer approachsuch as ecological engineering that builds with nature offers alonger-term coastal protection measure (Cheong, 2013). ThoughKey Move 4 comes somewhat close to this approach by recom-mending the restoration of dunes and vegetation to improve theecosystem, it has yet to be explicitly coupled with engineeringsolutions. A temporary and traditional engineering approach suchas beach nourishment still prevails as a viable and popular option toprotect the coast in Ocean Beach.

Relocation is another long-term solution that is absent from theplan because of people’s strong resistance. This also has to do withpeople’s experience of Ocean Beach. Amember of the People for thePark remarks that many consider their coastal environment to bestable. Major coastal risks such as sea-level rise combined witherosion are too far into the future to be of concern. People in 50years may have a different experience than those who live now and

Please cite this article in press as: Cheong, S.-M., Coastal adaptation: Th(2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.10.013

can consider relocation if they face more frequent erosions andinundation.

5. Conclusion

To initiate coastal adaptation in Ocean Beach, an actual andvisible coastal risk over time such as erosion was necessary.Accompanied by government funding and SPUR as a skillful andrespected mediator, coastal adaptation planning inclusive of allstakeholders came to fruition.

Because of diverse stakeholders in the beach, flexibility isconsidered key in planning. However, such an approach has alsoresulted in compromises and diluted solutions that might lead tothe path of least resistance. Going for “what everyone can livewith”as the strategy of SPUR can appease everyone and bring themtogether. However, it has also created a plan that may leave thepopulation defenseless in 50 to 100 years, if not sooner. This leadsto a dilemma as to plan at all in this manner or whether someplanning is better than nothing given the benefits of increasedpublic awareness and partnerships.

References

Berton, J., Allday, E., 2010. Erosion forces closure of Great Highway. San FranciscoChronicle. Retrieved from: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Erosion-forces-closure-of-Great-Highway-lanes-3275474.php (last accessed 19.05.13).

Buchanan, W., 2011. Coastal group sues S.F. over debris at Ocean Beach. ChronicleSacramento Bureau (27.8.2011). Retrieved from: http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Coastal-group-sues-S-F-over-debris-at-Ocean-Beach-2333670.php (lastaccessed 14.03.13).

CCC (California Coastal Commission), 2011. Staff report: regular calendar, applica-tion no. 2-10-33. Retrieved from: http://www.sfdpw.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid¼1360 (last accessed 10.05.13).

CCC (California Coastal Commission), 2012. Local coastal programs. Retrieved from:http://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcps.html (last accessed 19.05.13).

Cheong, S., 2013. Coastal adaptation with ecological engineering. Nat. Clim. Change3, 787e791.

Gaiser, S., 2011. Coastal advocates sue city overOcean Beanerosionwork. Bay CityNews(26.8.2011).Retrieved from:http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/08/coastal-advocates-sue-city-over-ocean-beach-erosion-work.php (last accessed 14.03.13).

Grant, B., 2011. The future of Ocean Beach. SPUR. Retrieved from: http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/future-ocean-beach (last accessed 14.03.13).

Rothman, H., 2002. The park that makes its ownweather: an administrative historyof Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Retrieved from: http://www.nps.gov/goga/historyculture/publications.htm (last accessed 19.05.13).

SFDPW (San Francisco Department of Public Works), 2013. Streets and streetscapes.Retrieved from: http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page¼1105 (last accessed19.05.13).

SFDPW (San Francisco Department of Public Works), USACE (U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers), 2005. Ocean Beach-Great Highway Storm Damage ProtectionProject. Retrieved from: http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page¼724 (lastaccessed 19.05.13).

San Francisco Environment, 2008. Mayor and park service name Ocean Beach VisionCouncil. Retrieved from: http://www.sfenvironment.org/news/press-release/mayor-and-park-service-name-ocean-beach-vision-council (last accessed14.03.13).

SFPUC(SanFranciscoPublicUtilitiesCommission), 2011. SanFrancisco:Sewer.Retrievedfrom: http://www.sfwater.org/index.aspx?page¼165 (last accessed 19.05.13).

SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation), 2010. Evaluation of siteconditions and considerations associated with resource protection and habitatenhancement with sand maintenance at Ocean Bean, Noriega to SantiagoStreets, San Francisco, California. Retrieved from: http://www.sfdpw.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid¼1167 (last accessed 10.05.13).

SPUR (San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association), 2012. Ocean BeachMaster Plan. Retrieved from: http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/ocean-beach-master-plan (last accessed 10.05.13).

Surfrider Foundation: San Francisco Chapter, 2009. Ocean Beach Vision Council.Retrieved from: http://sf.surfrider.org/programs/obvc.htm (last accessed19.05.13).

e case of Ocean Beach, San Francisco, Ocean & Coastal Management