San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission annual report

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

SAN FRANCISCO BAY
CONSERVATION & DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION

.................

................
.................
...............
........... ..............
........................ .....
..................

..........I...........
...................

..........
. ...........

...........

..........
........... ....

.......... .. .......

.............................

.............

..........
................
.......................
..........
.....................

........... ......

..........
..........
...........

...............
...........

..........................................................
....................
................
..........
. ............... ......... ..........

. .........-....... ..

....................

...................

.....................

.................... ......... ......
..........
..........................
......................

.......................
................. ........................

.............

.............. .... ...................
........................... .........

...........

i@,IARINAS & PORTS .........................
.............
FPORT
1982 ANNUAL R
HC
107
C22
S368
1982

Tan Chang's drawing represents two of the
Commission's significant accomplishments
in 1982: adoption of the San Francisco Bay
Area Seaport Plan and Bay Plan
amendments resulting from the
Recreational Boating Facilities Study. The
approximate location of seaports is shown
by ships; the approximate location of
marinas by small stars.

In addition to designing the covers for this
and the 1981 Annual Report, Ms. Chang is
the Commission's Bay Development Design
Analyst.

Commission meetings, open to the public,
are normally held on the first and third
Thursday of each month. Contact the
Commission office for information on
meeting location, time, and agenda.

The Commission's office is located at 30
Van Ness Avenue, Room 2011,
San Francisco, California 94102.
Telephone: (415) 557-3686.

1982 ANNUAL REPORT
BCDC

STATE Of CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
PHONE: 557-3686

December 31, 1982

Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Governor-Elect George Deukmejian
Members of the California Legislature

The Commission is pleased to submit its 1982 Annual Report of activities under
the McAteer-Petris Act, the Suisun Marsh Protection Act,-and the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act.

During the year, the Commission issued 26 major and 104 administrative permits
that involve $379 million.-of development. Permit mitigation measures will
result in 262 acres of additional Bay surface and 27 acres of new public
access along about five miles of shoreline once these projects are completed.

Four major Federal projects were certified under the Federal Coastal Act. The
Commission and Executive Director issued seven Cease and Desist Orders;
29 formal enforcement investigations were begun and 60 were continued from
previous years. Most violations of permit conditions and illegal Bay fill
have been corrected short of litigation.

The Commission continued its planning program to resolve major issues that
otherwise might cause difficulties for the developer, the Commission, and the
public in the short 90-day permit review period. Adopted were: the Regional
Seaport Plan containing projections of Port expansion needs and listing
suitable expansion sites; amendments to the Bay Plan's Recreational Boating
Facilities; policies for commenting on proposed projects in "Historic Diked
Baylands", once part of the Bay and having a close relationship to it. The
Commission certified the local protection components for Solano County and the
City of Suisun City, under the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act.

The Commission had the continuing fine advice of its volunteer Citizen's
Advisory Committee, Engineering Criteria and Design Review Boards; the Airport
and Seaport Regional Advisory Committees; and other public agencies. Public
participation has been most valuable with thoughtful comments from both
individuals and organizations. Useful links continue with"the State
Administration and Legislature; the media has been attentive and generally
supportive. The Attorney General's office has given effective representa-
tion. Mitigation conditions agreed to by developers have allowed conservation
and development to co-exist; in turn, no "third party" suit has ever been
filed against a BCDC permit.

As this is the final of eight annual reports I will sign, I extend my special
appreciation to my fellow Commissioners and to the BCDC staff. With 18 to 20
able Commissioners participating in matters needing decision during a long
afternoon, their tolerance had made the Presiding Officer's role possible and
pleasureable., And we have been well served by Executive Directors and staff
in numbers less than the Commission, a reason their energy, talents and
professionalism have had to be of the highest quality.

Respectfully submitted,
C)_ C. Y.-
JOSEPH C. HOUGHTELING
Chair

SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

The 27-member Commission was created in In 1977 the California Legislature gave the
1965 by the California Legislature in Commission the added r esponsibility of
response to broad Bay Area concern over implementing the Suisun Marsh Preservation
the future of San Francisco Bay. The Act in cooperation with local government
McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission's and the Department of Fish and Game. This
enabling legislation, gave the Commission legislation enacted into law most of the
the responsibility of preparing '-'a recommendations of the Suisun Marsh
comprehensive and enf orceable plan for the Protection Plan prepared by the Commission
conservation of the water of San Francisco during 1976. The Act requires local
Bay and the development of its shoreline." governments and special districts within the
In 1969,,the Commission submitted the Marsh to prepare a local protection program
completed San Francisco Bay Plan to the consistent with the Protection Plan and the
Governor and the Legislature. The Preservation Act. The local protection
McAteer-Petris Act was subsequently program includes controls designed to
amended to make the Commission protect the wetlands, riparian habitats, and
permanent and to give the Bay Plan the agricultural lands within the Marsh. In
force of law. 1982, the Commission certified the local
protection components for Solano County
The two objectives of the Bay Plan are: and the City of Suisun City. In prior years
1) to protect the Bay as a great natural the Commission had certified the local
resource for the b enef it of present and protection programs of the Solano County
future generations; and 2) to develop the Local Agency Formation Commission, the
Bay and its shoreline to their hightest Solano County Mosquito Abatement
potential with a minimum of Bay filling. To District, and the Suisun Resource
implement the Bay Plan, the Commission: Conservation District. With the exception
of the City of Benicia, which has
* Regulates all filling and dredging in San jurisdiction over only a very small strip of
Francisco Bay (which includes San Pablo the Marsh, the local protection program
and Suisun Bays, sloughs and certain certification process for the entire Marsh is
creeks and tributaries that are part of the complete.
Bay system, salt ponds and certain other
diked off areas);

* Provides, within a 100-foot-wide strip
inland from the Bay, public access to the
Bay to the maximum extent feasible,
consistent with the nature of new
shoreline developments; and

* Minimizes pressures to fill the Bay by
ensuring that the limited amount of
shoreline property suitable for regional
high priority water-oriented uses is
reserved for these purposes. Such priority
uses include: ports, water-related
industry, water-oriented recreation,
airports, and wildlife areas.

THE COMMISSION

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) is
composed of 27 members who represent
federal, state, and local governments, and
the general public. The Commission
members during 1982 were:

(The name of each Commissioner's alternate
is shown in parentheses.)

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES STATE REPRESENTATIVES

Appointed by the Governor Barbara B. Eastman,
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Joseph C. Houghteling, Chairman* (Polly Smith)
San Francisco
(Vacant) Donald L. Lollock,
State Resources Agency
Hans J. Schiller, Vice Chairman (Brian Hunter)
MIll Valley
(Alice L. Graham) Chon Gutierrez
Clifford L. Allenby*,
Cynthia Kay, Vallejo Department of Finance
(Nicholas Arguimbau) (S. Calvin Smith)
(Susanne Morgan*)
Denis T. Rice, Tiburon (Robert L. Harris)*
(Kirsten Olsen)
Claire T. Dedrick
Paul Chignell, San Anselmo William F. Northrop*
(Vacant) State Lands Commission
(Diane R. Jones)
Appointed by the Speaker of the Assembi (Richard S. Golden*)

Earl P. Mills, San Francisco Norman Kelley,
(David Jenkins) John West*
Business and Transportation Agency
Appointed by the Senate Rules Committee (William J. Dowd)
(Ethylyn Ann Hansen*)
Elizabeth Osborn, Fremont
(Patricia Shelton)

FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES

Lt. Col. Edward Lee,
Col. Paul Bazilwich*
Maj. Thomas J. Edgerton*
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Calvin Fong)
(James Wolfe*)

(Vacant)
Environmental Protect! onAgency

LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES --CITIES LOCAL REP RESENTATIVES--COUNTY

Appointed by the Association of Appointed by the County Board of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Supervisors

Councilman Arthur Lepore, Supervisor John T. George,
City of Millbrae Alameda County
4 (Supervisor Louise Renne, (William H. Fraley)
San Francisco)
Supervisor Tom Powers,
Councilwoman Barbara Kondylis, Contra Costa County
City of Vallejo (Supervisor Nancy Fahden)
Councilwoman Sherry C. Levit,*
City of Belvedere Supervisor Albert Aramburug
(Mayor Carol Singer-Peltz, City of Sausalito) Marin County
(Supervisor Gail M. Wilhelm)
Councilwoman'Dianne McKennaq
City of Sunnyvale Supervisor Harold Moskowite,
(Councilman Robert Bury, Napa County
City of Redwood City) (Supervisor Sam Chapman)

Councilman Frank H. Ogawa, Supervisor John L. Molinari,
City of Oakland San Francisco County
(Mayor Valance Gill, (Dian Blomquist)
City of San Leandro)
Supervisor Rebecca Q. Morgan,
Santa Clara County
(W. Eric Carruthers)

Supervisor K. Jacqueline Speier,
San Mateo County
(Mayor Roberta Teglia)

Supervisor Richard Brann,
Solano County
(Supervisor Osby Davis)

Supervisor Bob Adams,
Sonoma County
(Donald Head)

Commission Members or Alternates Who
Resigned from the Commission During
1982.

REGULATION

.The Commission's regulatory activities fall Permits are classifed as either "major" or
within three broad, overlapping areas: fladministrative." Administrative permits
pre-application coordination with project are issued by the Executive Director for
proponents; permit review and formal action 11minor repairs and improveme6ts,t' as
by the Commission or Executive Director; defined in the Commission's laws and
and project monitoring and enforcement regulations. All other permits are major
activities. permits and *require a public hearing and
action by the Commission. Permits are
Pre-Application Work issued only if the project is consistent with
the policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan
The Commission encourages project and the McAteer-Petris Act, or the Suisun
proponents to discuss with its staff at the Marsh Preservation Act of 1977 and Suisun
earliest possible time proposals that may Marsh Protection Plan, as they apply.
either fall within the Commission's permit
jurisdiction, or that May affect the Bay. The Permit Summary shows the permit
The staff works with the proponents, local activity for 1982. The Summary does not
governments,'and the public prior to the reflect the large number of projects that did
actual filing and formal processing of not progress to the permit application stage
permit applications to assure that the because the prospective applicants were
project is in conformity with the advised by staff that the projects would not
Commission's laws. This pre-application qualify for a permit under the
work varies. from simple inquiries McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan.
concerning jurisdiction or the proper use of
fill, to extensive meetings over many The approved projects during 1982 total
months with architects and designers. approximately $379,000,000 in development
Because project design has not been expenditures and will result in a total of 24
finalized at this stage, project sponsors find acres of new Bay fill. The projects will also
it easier to comply with Commission policy; provide approximately 286.acres of new Bay
changes can be incorporated far more easily surface area; thus the net increase in new
than at later stages in the development Bay Area will be 262 acres. In addition, the
process. Occasionally it is found that a projects will provide approximately 27 acres
proposed project cannot be constructed at a of new public access along about five miles
given site; such early detection reduces of Bay shoreline.
frustration and costs for applicants.
For the five-year period of 1978 through
Permits 1982, the Commission approved a total of
179 applications for major permits.
The placement of fill, dredging or any According to figures supplied by the
substantial change in use of the Bay or applicants at the time the permit
shoreline requires a permit. Under the application was submitted to the
BCDC law, the Commission must complete Commission, all projects approved by BCDC
action on a permit application within 90 total almost $1,226,000,000 in construction
days after a completed application has been costs. Although these projects required 76
filed or the permit is automatically acres of new Bay fill, mitigation measures
granted. As a result, the Commission has resulted in 432 acres of new Bay surface, or
one of the most expeditious regulatory a net gain of approximately 351 acres of -
processes in state government. Bay surface. Conditions for approval of the
permits also provided for an increase of
almost 274 acres of new public access,
which adds about 8 miles of linear access to
the edge of San Francisco Bay.

Permit Summary

Major Permits Granted.- 26 To Benicia Industries, three permits for
Administrative Permits Granted: 104 adjacent auto processing and storage
Applications Denied: 0 facilities located along the Bay just north of
the Benicia-Martinez Bridge in Solano
Major permits were issued: County. The total 143-acre project will be
paved and enclosed by a security fence, and
To the Marriott Corporation to construct a will include warehouses, office buildings,
10-story hotel and a 14,000-square-foot and auto processing buildings. A bridge over
convention facility on a 9.3-acre parcel near Sulphur Springs Creek within the project
the San Francisco International Airport in will also be constructed. Public access is
Burlingame, San Mateo County. About 3 required along approximately 1-1/4 miles of
acres of the site will be devoted to public the shoreline and includes public,parking,
access consisting of a bicycle/pedestrian fishing and picnicking facilities. The
shoreline pathway around the site, developer is also required to dedicate
landscaped areas, seating, and water approximately 55 acres of tidal marsh and
fountains. mudflats adjacent to the site to the State of
California for wildlife habitat, improve an.
To the City of San Mateo to widen East undeveloped 1.3-acre shoreline park located
Third Avenue and construct a new four-lane in another part of Benicia, and to dedicate
bridge across Seal Slough near Mariner's and enhance a 10-acre wetland upland from
Island in San Mateo County. The existing the Bay for wildlife habitat. (The
two-lane bridge will be closed to vehicle Commission acted on two of these.,permi.ts
traffic and improved for public access use. an December 16, 1982. The permittee has
The City will also enhance an 8-acre tidal indicated that it would not execute the
marsh near Seal Slough, and will provide a permits. The matter was unresolved at the
4,500-f oot-bicycle/pedestrian end of the year.)
pathway along the Bay shoreline.
To the City of Vallejo to expand an existing
To the Marshland Development Company to municipal marina located in Mare Island
prepare a 7.2-acre site for future Strait in Solano County. Public access
development on the south side of Alviso includes additional picnicking, viewing and
Slough, in the City of San Jose, Santa Clara fishing facilities, landscaping, and a
County. Although only grading and pathway around the marina.
contouring of the site is proposed at this.
time, public access will be provided on a To David Steckler and Marin County to
800-foot-long pathway around the site and renovate and expand an existing marina in
adjacent to the Bay. Richardson Bay, north of the City of
Sausalito, in Marin County. The project
includes renovation of some existing
facilities, expansion from 160 to 220 berths,
and the removal of old barges and other
debris. The developer will also sub-lease 20
acres of tidelots to Marin Count for open
y
space. Public access is provided on a
pathway on the project perimeter.

To Fremont International Partners for a To Rich Diodati to construct a marina and
266-acre industrial park near the Fremont office/industrial park northwest of the
Airport in Alameda County. An adjacent existing Oyster Point Marina, in the City of
260-acre area will be returned to tidal South San Francisco, San Mateo County.
ac ti on'and will include a 40-acre flood The marina will provide berths for 227
control basin and a 25-acre restored marsh. pleasure boats and will be located within the
The natural habitat areas will be separated surrounding office building and warehouse
from the industrial park by the long, narrow complex. About 10.3 acres of public access
flood control basin. A public access will be provided throughout the site and
pathway will be provided on a 2-mile-long includes picnic facilities, pathways,
levee surrounding much of the tidal area. landscaping, and parking.
The developer will also construct two
parking/staging areas as well as picnic To the City of Menlo Park to expand its
facilities, landscaping, and other amenities. public dump located near the Flood and
The industrial park will include electronics Westpoint Sloughs in San Mateo County.
component assembly, light manufacturing, The City requires.the additional 11.5 acres
research and development, administrative to expand its refuse disposal capacity until a
offices, and warehousing. new regional dump site is operational. No
public access is provided, but the City will
To the Contra Costa County Sanitation establish a $150,000 fund to acquire land to
District to construct a wastewater be returned to tidal action when such land
treatment plant for the City of Port Costa. becomes available.
The site is located on the Carquinez Straits
in Contra Costa County. The new To Triple "A" Machine Shop Inc. to renovate
treatment plant, consisting of filter beds, and restore several drydocks at the Hunter's
pipelines, and sewer mains, and two Point Naval Shipyard in the City and County
buildings will be constructed between the of San Francisco. The project will expand
Southern Pacific Railroad tracks and the ship repair services at the site. Because of
Bay. An improved picnicking and fishing the nature of the project, no public access is
area will be opened to public access provided at the site; however, the developer
between the plant and the Bay. will provide public access improvements at
the nearby Candlestick Point State
To the Port of Oakland and MacMarin, Inc. Recreation Area.
to demolish and remove an old restaurant
and construct nearby a new restaurant on Also to Triple "A" Machine Shop Inc. to
the Oakland Estuary in Jack London Square construct 500 dry boat storage spaces,
in Alameda County. Public pathways and recreational vehicle spaces, chandlery,and
landscaping will be provided around the other facilities at the Hunters' Point
restaurant and on the edge of the Bay at the Shipyard. Public access includes
site. approximately 1,600 feet of shoreline with
landscaping, boat launch and picnicking
To the City of Alameda and the Aeolian facilities. (The. Commission approved this
Yacht Club to resurface and expand an application at its December 16, 1982
existing parking lot along the shoreline near meeting. The permittee has indicated an
the Bay Farm Island Bridge in the City and unwillingness to accept the permit as'
County of Alameda. Public access includes conditioned. The matter was unresolved at
viewing and picnicking areas and a pathway the end of the year.)
.around much of the project site.

To the Alameda County Flood Control and To the City of Benicia, an amendment to its
Water Conservation District for an permit for construction of the Benicia
eight-year master permit to perform Marina. The developer will provide an
maintenance dredging of 10 flood control additional 3/4-acre public area adjacent to
channels into the Bay at various locations in the water in another part of the marina as
Alameda County. No public access will be the result of reducing public access to the.
provided as a result of this permit, but the piers, visitor dock, and small boat tie-up
District is required to provide certain dock within the proposed marina.
unspecified improvements to the East Bay
Regional Park District as the Park District To the Port of Redwood City for the
is able to develop and maintain them. mooring of up to 150 LASH barges for a
two-year period, south of Corkscrew Slough
To the City of Berkeley to renovate and in San Mateo County. The barges will cover
expand the existing Berkeley Municipal a maximum of six acres of Bay surface and
Fishing Pier in Alameda County. some will rest on the bottom during some
Improvements include restoration of the stages of low tide. No public access is
existing pier, 200 feet of new pier, and provided for this temporary-use permit.
installation of an artifical reef under the
piers. The entire area of the fishing pier Suisun Marsh Permits
will be open to the public.
Under the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of
To the Central Marin Sanitation Agency to 1977, local governments andspecial
construct a new wastewater treatment plant districts with jurisdiction in the
and Bay out@all and interceptor pipes in and 100-square-mile Suisun Marsh in southern
near the Cities of Larkspur and San Rafael, Solano County have prepared components of
Marin County. Public access includes a local protection program for their areas of
improvements,to Remillard Park in the Marsh. In addition, a Marsh
Larkspur, improving the levee where the development permit is required for any
outf all occurs for public use, and dedication development in the Marsh. BCDC issues the
of 4,400 square feet for a future wildlife permit within the "primary management
habitat area. area," which includes the wetlands within
the Marsh. Local governments issue the
To the Port of Oakland to make permanent permit within the "secondary management
a dike located at the end of. the main area," which surrounds the primary
runway of the Oakland International Airport management area and consists mainly of
in Alameda County. The dike was allowed agricultural land that is part of the Marsh
to remain in place to protect a nesting area ecological system. Both types of permits
of the least tern, an endangered species. A must be consistent with the local protection
number of culverts will be placed in the dike program and the Act.
to open an 8-acre area to tidal action. The
top of the dike will be landscaped and will Marsh development permits issued by local
be available to the public. governments in the secondary mangement
area are appealable to BCDC. However in
To the City of Alameda to relocate and 1982, no permits were appealed to the
widen the intersection of Doolittle Drive Commission. This was due in part to close
and Harbor Bay Parkway, located adjacent coordination between the Commission and
to Doolittle Pond and San Leandro Bay in the local governments.
Alameda County. The project includes a
pedestrian/bicycle pathway between the
roadway improvements and the Bay.

BCDC granted one.significant permit in the ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
primary management area of the Marsh:
In 1977, the Commission began a much
To the Dow Chemical Corporation to needed enforcement program. Under the
conduct exploratory drilling for natural gas program, the Commission has investigated
near Nurse Slough. No public access is reports of.unauthorized fill and construction
provided at this time, and if the exploratory within its jurisdiction and reviewed all
well is unsuccessful, all the improvements BCDC permits issued since September 1965
will be removed and the area returned to for compliance with various specific permit
tidal action. However, if it is successful, conditions.
Dow will seek a permanent permit for the
pumping and pipeline facilities and will During 1982, 29 formal investigations of
provide appropriate public access. enforcement matters were begun, over 60
previously initiated cases were carried over,
Considerable staff time was also devoted to and numerous other reports of possible
pre-application discussions on a wide range violations were investigated. In most cases,
of projects including construction of radio after the staff identifed the problem and
towers, a pet cemetery, and development of contacted the responsible party,
wind-powered electricity generators. A satisfactory solutions were reached. Since.
major concern (if the Commission are the the program began, approximately 75
many proposals for development of these percent of the cases have been resolved at
wind-powered turbines in the Marsh. Solana the site or by permit amendment.
County included an ordinance within its
local protection program component Although most enforcement matters are
permitting the turbines. Further research found to be minor infractions, with the
will be necessary on the impact an parties willing to cooperate to resolve them
migratory birds and the visual qualities of quickly, some cases require stronger
the Marsh. enforcement measures. In 1982, the
Commission and the Executive Director
Consistency Determinations issued a total of seven cease and desist
orders.
Under the terms of the Federal Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972, BCDC A major case carried over from 1981 was
reviews proposals involving federal resolved in 1982 involving filling and grading
activities within its jurisdiction or directly performed without the required permits in a
affecting the Bay segment of the- California marsh located near Suisun City in Solana
coastal zone for consistency with the County. After three evidentiary hearings by
Commission's federally approved a five-member committee appointed by the
Management Program. During 1982, BCDC Commission, the property owner stipulated
acted on several federal projects including: to a Cease and Desist Order which included
removal of fill from a tidal marsh,
The Department of the Army proposal to breaching of old dikes to improve
renovate and improve Wharf 7 at the circulation to the marsh, and dedication of
Oakland Outer Harbor Army Base. the marsh to permanent open space.

Department of the Navy proposals for three
major projects: dredging at Point Molate
near Richmond; a one-half mile-long sewer
outfall and related improvements to the
sewer discharge system at the Point Molate
Naval Fuel Depot; and for dredging 450,000
cubic yards initially and approximately
300,000 cubic yards annually for a ten-year
period at the Naval Supply Center in
Oakland.

Some of the major enforcement matters in Staff discovered that commercial areas, at
1982 included: a previously approved project in Redwood
City, were being used prior to dedication
The Executive Director issued an order that and improvement of public access in
stopped dredging and disposal work at violation of a permit granted in 1979. Also
Erman's Pierce Harbor near Benicia in portions of the project were sold without
Solana County. The property owner had assignment of the permit to the new
applied for a permit for the work, but the property owner. The staff is now working
application was returned without action with the permittee to resolve the matter
because of its incompleteness. The property before evidentiary hearings on a proposed
owners resubmitted an application that was cease and desist order are initiated.
approved, subject to conditions protecting-
wetlands at the site. Issuance of a cease and desist order halted
grading and construction of a launching
The Executive Director issued an order to ramp at a site in the City and County of San
prevent the commencement of construction Francisco. Although-an application had
of a parking lot and street in the City of been filed and was being reviewed by the
Benicia, Solana County. The parties had Commission, the applicant had started work
submitted an incomplete application which before the Commission could consider the
was returned. Subsequent to the order, a project. Subsequently, the Commission
completed application was submitted, and a issued a permit for the project, subject to
permit for the work was issued. provision of public access improvements
along a nearby shoreline area.
The staff discovered that boat docks and
other shoreside improvements were being A stipulated order was issued regarding a
constructed without prior plan approval and boat dock that had been installed without a
in locations not covered by a previously permit in Marin County. The project had
issued permit in the City of Oakland, been denied previously by the Commission
Alameda County. In addition, public access on the grounds that the dock would
improvements had not been installed prior contribute to the cumulative impact of
to use of the commercial facilities, also in increased boat traffic, endangering a nearby
violation of the permit. The permittee is harbor seal haul-out area. The property
developing an acceptable plan for bringing owner reapplied for a permit, which was
the project into conformance with the subsequently granted with conditions
permit. limiting use of the dock to certain -times
that would have the least impact an the seal
As a result of an order issued by the population.
Executive Director, construction of several
.pile-supported structures in an area subject A cease and desist order -was issued
to tidal action on Corte Madera Creek, near requiring compliance with conditions of -a
the City of Larkspur in Marin County, was permit granted in 1973 to the Port of San
halted. The structures were used to store Francisco which authorized the construction
materials and equipment. The parties have and use of a restaurant on the plaza behind
removed some of the structures and have the Ferry Building, in the City and County
submitted a permit request for the of San Francisco. The order required that
remaining facilities. unauthorized parking in areas reserved for
public- access be stopped.

PLANNING ACTIVITIES

Seaport Plan

The.San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan The Plan recognizes that increased cargo
was adopted by the Commission in creates a long-range demand for expanded
December of 1982. The Plan recognizes Bay Area maritime facilities, which can he
that Bay Area ports must compete with met in two ways: by building new facilities,
other West Coast ports in order to gain the and by making better use of existing ones.
new cargoes which are important to the Bay Channel deepening, increasing land area of
Area economy while, at the same time, they existing terminals, and greater terminal
must be responsive to other concerns of the productivity also can reduce the pressure
region. The Plan is the work of the joint for new terminals and their attendant costs
MTC/BCDC Seaport Planning Advisory and environmental impacts. The Plan also
Committee. The committee included provides for coordination of ground-
representatives from a wide range of Bay transportation development and identifies
Area interests: the six Bay Area ports several specific short and medium-range
located in Beniclat Encinal Terminals, projects that will improve the flow of goods
Oakland, Redwood City, Richmond, San to and from Bay Area ports. The Plan also
Francisco; BCDC and MTC; CalTrans; the encourages local government to take actions
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. that enhance access to ports.
Maritime Administration; the Bay Area
Council and Association of Bay Area East Bay Regional Shoreline Park
Governments; and the Save San Francisco
Bay Association. The Commission staff, working closely with
the State Department of Parks and
The Committee's first meeting was in Recreation and the Conservancy, produced a
September, 1974. The necessarily lengthy report on the East Bay Shoreline. The
planning process brought into one -forum the purpose was to identify conflicting land uses
many participants involved in port and to prioritize desirable projects that
expansion, participants whose interests may would be funded by the Conservancy. BCDC
initially have seemed to be irreconcilable. staff also participates in the ongoing East
Yet through the informative technical Bay Shoreline Park Advisory Committee and
reports and the understanding generated by continues to coordinate requests for
monthly meetings, the Plan was adopted by Conservancy- funded projects within the
the Committee by a vote of fourteen to proposed park. BCDC issued a permit in
one. The Commission itself adopted the 1989 for the first of such projects:
Plan unanimously. improvement of small boat docks in the
Berkeley Marina.
The Plan concludes that there will be a need
for significant port expansion over the next Energy Facilities
two decades (dry cargo will double and
containerized cargo will quadruple by the BCDC coordinates with the California
year 2000). In order to meet this demand, Energy Commission and the California
the Plan designates areas to be reserved for Coastal Commission in reviewing potential
marine terminals and related facilities and power plant sites within the Bay. BCDC
provides that these areas should be also reviewed and advised,on potential Bay
protected for port use by the MTC and coal-terminal development, construction
BCDC and, through mutual cooperation@ by and transporting of off-shore oil drilling
the ports and local governments. In order to equipment on the Bay shoreline, natural gas
meet the projected demand with a minimum exploration in the Suisun Marsh, and
of adverse impact, the Plan provides that pre-project planning and environmental
new terminals should. be permitted only review of wind-powered electricty
when shown to be needed and when located generators. The staff also studied the
at one of the sites designated by the Plan as advisability of retaining a designation for a
the best available. future central bay super-tanker terminal in
the Bay Plan.

Diked Historic Baylands California Coastal Conservancy

The Diked Historic Baylands Study and maps In 1981 the Conservancy's area of authority
were adopted by the Commission in October was enlarged to include the Bay Area,
1982. Begun in April 1979, the study looked allowing cities and counties in the Bay Area
at diked seasonal wetlands that were to apply for funding for public access
historically part of San Francisco Bay but improvements and urban waterfront and
were diked.'Off from tidal action and are not wetland enhancement projects. BCDC staff
within the Commission's jurisdiction. works closely with the Conservancy in
pre-project planning to assure that proposals
The study found that there.were are consistent with the Bay Plan.
approximately 80 square miles of diked
baylands located at 289 sites throughout the In 1982 the Commission made specific
Bay Area. Five technical reports provided consistency determinations and
the background for the staff report and the recommendations for funding for six Bay
findings and policies: Agricultural, Area Conservancy projects totaling $1.2
Recreational, and Ecological Values of million: (1) for 1,500 feet of new levee
Diked Historic Baylands; Guidelines for trails in the Greater Vallejo Recreation
Restoration and Enhancement of Baylands; District; (2) for a 3,500-foot-long
and Analysis of Powers Exercised by bicycle/pedestrian path and upgrading for
Regulatory Agencies over Diked Baylands. public use portions of the Alameda City
Policies will be used as the basis for Dump in the City of Alameda; (3) for a
comments on projects requiring a Corps' two-mile-long pedestrian/bicycle path
permit and for comments on environmental connecting an existing trail within the East
documents for proposed projects. They Bay Regional Park District to the San
include policies that discourage fill of diked Lorenzo Creek Bridge in the City of San
baylands for non-priority uses, uf ge Leandro; (4) for a 200-foot-long, two-way
retention of baylands currently in pedestrian/bicycle bridge across San
agricultural use until it can be proven that Lorenzo Creek which aids the ultimate
it is no longer economical to continue such construction of 10 miles of shoreline trail
use, and recommend that mitigation be along the East Bay; (5) for a 6,500-foot-long
provided whenever baylands are filled. bicycle/pedestrian trail along levees in the
Cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto plus a
The study received widespread Bay Area 150-foot-span bridge crossing San
interest. In response the Commission held Francisquito Creek (this project will
eight public hearings, plus many preliminary connect the Baylands Bicycle Path with
meetings between the Commission staff and bicycle facilities at the newly-opened
interested parties. The Commission Dumbarton Bridge;) and (6) for a major
maintained a mailing list of over 800 625-acre wetland acquistion and
interested parties including private citizens enhancement project at Rush Creek in
and land owners; the construction and Marin County.
land-development industry; and all levels of
municipal, county, state, and federal Outer Continental Shelf Oil Leases
government. During the roughly
three-month-long public hearing process, The staff continued to coordinate with the
the Commission revised many of the maps Governor's Office of Planning and Research
designating diked baylands, and modified and other interested State agencies on
preliminary findings and policies in response Outer Continental Shelf leasing and related
to public comment. actitivies that might affect the Bay, such as
the fabrication of exploratory and pumping
facilities within the Bay Area and
transportation of crude oil to Bay Area
refineries. This expanded use of existing
facilities in the Bay Area must be
anticipated in order to minimize the
potential harmful impacts on the Bay Area.

Recreational Boating Facilities

In December 1982, the Commission adopted 2. Symbols for possible marina sites were
several changes to the San Francisco Bay removed from Bay Plan maps. The study
Plan resulting from recommendations found that existing policies clearly state
contained in its recently completed that marinas may be-sited at any location in.
Recreational Boating Facilities study. The the Bay so long as the siting, fill, and
study was prepared in response to the priority use policies are satisfied. The
Commission's concern over the impacts, Commission found, that although thirty-four
number@ appearance, and design of marinas; marina projects were approved by the
the Commission has received numerous Commission between 1970 and 1982, only
applications for new and expanded marinas two were at sites shown in the Bay Plan as
over the last 10 years. The study also possible marina sites, and therefore such
reviewed the needs for and impacts of boat site designations. were unnecessary and
launching facilities and small boat docks. potentially misleading. The Bay Plan now
The study recognized that San Francisco provides that a case-by-case analysis of
Bay is one of the most exciting areas in the each proposed project will occur, and that
world for recreational boating, from world marinas may be built at any suitable site.
class racing to wind-surfing. The study
found that there are now extensive marinas Highway 101 Study
and related facilities within the Bay Area
and that there is a continued demand for Highway 101 on the Peninsula has
more berthing space. It also found that, experienced significant nearby development
with proper planning, new and expanded over the last few years. Newly completed
marina development is possible without and proposed projects east of Highway 101
adverse environmental iMpaCtS.on the Bay. account for over 20,000,000 square feet of
retail, industrial, and office space; over
In response to findings in the study, the 6,000 new hotel rooms; and approximately
Commission adopted two basic changes to 7,500 new residential units. Concerned that
the Bay Plan: the potentially cumulative impacts of such
development an the regional transportation
1. Existing Bay Plan policies indicated that system could lead to pressures for Bay fill
large amounts of fill could be authorized f or to accommodate travel demand, the staffs
marina support facilities (particularly of the Metropolitan Transportation
parking lots, roads, and storage areas) and Commission and BCDC conducted a study to
that sites that are water-covered or-that assess the travel impacts of the
contain valuable wetlandsmight be development.
appropriate for marinas. Because
developers rely on the Bay Plan policies in The study found that there was a substantial
the early planning stage of marina projects, potential impact on the regional
the Bay Plan was changed to indicate that transportation system. The Commission
such filling would not be authorized unless concluded that the best way to manage this
under very stringent conditions; and location potential impact is for MTC, the regional
criteria were clarified to ensure the transportation planning agency, San Mateo
protection of high-value wetlands and County, the cities along Highway 101, San
water-covered areas for habitat. Mateo Transit District, and CalTrans to
work together to develop strategies for
managing highway and transit facilities
along the the transportation corridor.

Regional Airports Richardson Bay Special Area Plan

Because airports have historically required The Commission completed a feasibility
large amounts of Bay fill (both Oakland and study, prepared with the cooperation of
San Francisco International Airports are Marin County and the Cities of Mill Valley,
built almost entirely on fill), the Tiburon, Sausalito, and Belvedere. They
Commission is vitally concerned with all found that because of increased demand for
development within or near Bay Area use of Richardson Bay for pleasure and
airports. The Commission on its own behalf, houseboat marinas, the need to control the
and as a member of the MTC/ABAG increasing number of anchor-out boats, and
Regional Airport Planning Commitee, the need for a unified set of planning
reviewed 8 wide range of proposed projects policies and regulatory controls by the
during 1982: a runway extension on Bay fill Commission and local governments, further
at San Carlos Airport, a master plan for study was both feasible and needed. As a
development of the Oakland North Field result, the Commission and Marin County
Airport, proposed high-rise hotels near the have undertaken a Special Area Plan,
departure path of San Francisco Airport, a supported in part by a generous grant from
proposed 68-story office building that could the San Francisco Foundation.
interf -ere with flight activities at the
Oakland Airport, and a grant request for Fill Controls
planning an expansion at Marin County's
Gnoss Field. The Commission also reviewed The Commission initiated the study to
Federal Aviation Administration regulations resolve questions concerning legal aspects
affecting navigable airspace, air travel of whether or to what extent the
trends affecting the Bay Area (which Commission can require mitigation, the
resulted in' revised f orcasts of air traffic), public trust and its implications for BCDC
and continues to monitor the multitude of policies, and regulation of fill in general.
lawsuits seeking damages from San Conducted in cooperation with the
Francisco Airport for noise impacts. California State Attorney General's Office
and other legal consultants, it will be
Freshwater Inflow considered by the Commission in early 1983.

This study reviewed information developed Houseboat and Live-aboard Facilities Study,
by the State Water Resources Control Board
during its adoption of the Delta Plan and the A companion to the recreational boating and
issuance of a new water rights decision fill control study, it examines the
(Decision 1485) in 1978. As a result of this Commission's past permit activities and
information, the findings and policies on legal restrictions, particularlythe public
fresh water inflow were changed. trust, affecting houseboats and
live-aboards. It is expected to be completed
The Commission also considered various by mid-1983.
water measures under consideration by the
Legislature and took positions emphasizing Water Quality Study
the importance of fresh water inflow to the
Bay system and the need to study fully This study will review changes made since
impacts on, the Bay of any further diversions the late sixties in state and federal water
of fresh water. pollution laws, the development of new
water quality management plans, the
In accordance with the Commission's current state of water quality in the Bay,
adopted work program, the Commission and water quality information developed
began the following studies in 1982: from recent research efforts, to determine
whether revised or additional findings and
policies regarding water quality should be
considered as possible Bay Plan amendments.

.13

LEGISLATION LEGAL ACTIVITIES

Assembly Bill 675, the Commission's In 1982 the Commission was involved either
legislative program introduced by directly or as friend of the court in several
Assemblyman Byron Sher, was passed and important- lawsuits that raised major land
signed into law by the Governor in 1982. use issues affecting the Commission. Two
The bill made changes to the Commission's major lawsuits were continued from the
Bay Fill Clean-up and Abatement Account, prior year:
whereby fines would be deposited in the
account rather than going directly into the State of California ex rel. San Francisco
State's General Fund, and changed Bay Conservation and Development
provisions for expenditure from the account Commission v. United States, et al.
to allow the Commission to use the funds in (Hamilton Air Force Base litigation). In
any part of the Bay, rather than only in June 1980, the United States General
certain prescribed areas. The bill as Services Administration (GSA) announced its
originally introduced by Assemblyman Sher final disposition of Hamilton Air Force Base
would also have provided civil penalities for in Marin County. The Commission believed
violations of BCDC law, but this portion was the proposed disposition was not consistent
deleted from the final version of the bill. with the BCDC law or the Bay Plan, which
designated Hamilton for airport priority use
The Commission also reviewed and took to reduce pressures for airport fill at other
positions on several other bills affecting the bayfront airports. The Commission filed
Bay or the Commission's policies. For suit against GSA to require submission and
example: (1) AB 1531, which transferred Commission approval of a consistency
certain tidelands to the City of Brisbane, determination under the.federal Coastal
was amended to address concerns expressed Zone Management Act. This litigation is
by BCDC; (2) BCDC supported AB 1418 still pending.
which created a land bank administered by
the State Lands Commission; (3) BCDC Leslie Salt v. BCDC. The Commission
opposed AB 2286 which would have issued a cease and desist order against
transferred certain tidelands and submerged Leslie Salt Company requiring the removal
lands to a private party without of illegal fill that had been placed by
corresponding benefit to the public as unknown persons on Leslie's property in the
required by existing law; (4) BCDC south Bay on Alviso Slough some time
supported the currently pending SB 1858 between 1971 and 1976. Leslie subsequently
which would prohibit leasing for oil and gas sued to invalidate the order and to prohibit
extraction on certain tidelands in the Bay any further Commission enforcement
and along the coast; (5) BCDC, along with proceedings. Leslie contends that a
several other agencies, strongly opposed landowner has no liability under the
AB-1879 which would have established a McAteer-Petris Act under these
conclusive presumption against the public circumstances. The trial court agreed with
trust; (6) BCDC opposed SB 1214 which Leslie and mandated the order rescinded.
would have terminated the public trust an The Commission has appealed the decision
certain tidelands and submerged lands; and to the California Court of Appeal.
(7) BCDC opposed SB 1766 which. would have
deleted portions of the Napa River from the
Commission's jurisdiction and would have
removed a requirement for erosion control
from the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act.

The Commission participated in two other On December 20, 1982 the Supreme Court
significant pieces of litigation in 1982: decided that the cases had been improperly
consolidated. In Jackson and Hunter the
State of Calif Court found that plaintiffs were not entitled
ornia, et al. v. Baldridge
al. In late I the California Coasta- to private attorney general fees. In Pacific
5ornmission, BCDC and the State Legal Foundation the Court decided that the
challenged proposed federal regulations question of the validity of the public access
defining various statutory terms in federal guidelines was not yet ripe for decision
consistency provisions of the Coastal Zone because the question had not been raised by
Management Act. The proposed regulations a party directly af f ected.
would have excluded oil and gas pre-leasing
activities of the federal government on the Other significant legal activities included:
Outer Continental Shelf and the transfer of
federal property from the federal Compliance with Assembly Bill 1111. This
government to other entities from legislation, enacted in 1980, requires that
complying with state regulatory programs all state agencies review their existing
for coastal zone management (i.e. regulations for compliance with five
consistency determination). criteria: authority, necessity, clarity,
consistency, and reference. The staff
Partly as a result of this lawsuit and partly completed its review, reorganization and
as a result of intense Congressional rewrite of the existing regulations in the
pressure, the Commerce Department latter part of 1982. The Commission filed a
withdrew the proposed regulations pending Notice of Completion with the Office of
action by a federal task force established to Administrative Law, and will consider the
study and propose new legislation. -In 1982 new version of its regulations for adoption
the Department of Commerce withdrew its in early 1983.
support of the proposed regulations, and the
case has therefore been dismissed as,moot. Review of Regulations. BCDC's staff
reviewed and commented on regulations
Pacific Legal Foundation v. California proposed by the United States Army Corps
Ifoastal Commission and Jackson and-Hunter of Engineers for the implementation of the
v. California Coastal Commission. These Corps' permit program under Section 10 of
two cases challenged public access the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and
guidelines used by the California Coastal under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Commission for permits. The California on existing United States Environmental
Court of Appeal held that the guidelines Protection Agency regulations under Section
violated the California Constitution and 404(b) of the Clean Water Act and on new
were inconsistent with the California regulations proposed by the California
Coastal Act. The Coastal Commission Department of Resources under the
petitioned the California Supreme Court to California Environmental Quality Act. The
review the decision, and because of the staff made extensive comments on each set
possible impact upon BCDC's own public of proposed regulations to support the
access guidelines, BCDC filed an amicus continued protection of San Francisco Bay
curiae brief supporting the Coastal and its immediate surroundings, and for
Commission's plea and urging the Supreme compliance with the Commission's laws and
Court to reverse the earlier decision. regulations.

ENGINEERING CRITERIA REVIEW BOARD DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

Members of this Board are specialists in the Members of the volunteer Design Review
fields of structural engineering, soils Board advise the Commission on the
engineering, geology, engineering geology appearance, design, and public access of
and architecture. They advise the proposed projects requiring BCDC permits.
Commission on the safety of proposed Bay Because the- Commission may only approve a
fill projects. Board members volunteer project if maximum feasible public access
their time for multidisciplinary review of consistent with the project is provided, the
projects proposed in earthquake-prone areas advice of the Board regarding public access
with problematic soil conditions. provided by such projects is a critical part
of the application process.
Dr. Robert E. Wallace, Geologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park Jacob Robbins, Chairman
Chairman Architect/Planner
Robbins and Ream, San Francisco
Donald Harms, Architect
Friedman, S2gar, McCarthy and Miller Mai Arbegast, Landscape Architect
San Francisco Berkeley

Dr. Richard H. Jahns, Geologist Eldon Beck, Landscape Architect
Stanford University, Palo Alto Mill Valley

Raymond Lundgren, Soils Engineer Robert Cooper, Engineer*
Woodward-Clyde Consultant Cooper, Clark and Associates
San Francisco Redwood City

Alan L. O'Neill, Engineering Geologist John Field, Architect
Converse, Ward, Davis, Dixon and Bull, Field, Volkmann, and Stockwell
Associates, San Francisco San Francisco

Joseph P. Nicoletti, Stuctural Engineer Stanley Gould, Architect
John A. Blume and Associates Design Professionals, Inc.
San Francisco San, Jose

Dr. Egor P. Popov, Structural Engineer Kenneth Simmons, Architect
University of California, Berkeley Community Design Collaborative
Oakland
John E. Rinne, Structural Engineer
Kensington John Weese, Architect*
Mill Valley
A. E. Wanket, Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
San Francisco

Dr. T. Leslie Youd
Soils Engineer
U.S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park

Prof. James M. Duncan
Soils Engineer
University of California, Berkeley

Prof. Gerald W. Clough, Soils Engineer*
Stanford University
Palo Alto *Board Member who resigned during 1982

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The legislatively mandated Citizens Dwight Steele
Advisory Committee assists and advises the Attorney
Commission in carrying out its Walnut Creek
responsibilities. The 20-member Committee
is representative of a broad cross-section of Richard Trudeau
interests concerned with the future of San East Bay Regional Park District
Francisco Bay and its shoreline. Oakland

Walter A. Abernathy (Five Vacancies)
Port of Oakland

Rose Beatty
Los Altos
Commissioners and Staff representing
Henry Bostwick, Jr. BCDC on other Commissions, Committees
San Mateo County Development and Boards:
Association
San Mateo Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Richard M. Boswell Joseph C. Houghteling
Pacific Inter Club Yacht
Association Regional Airport Planning Committee
El Cerrito@
Hans J. Schiller
Robert D. Brown, Jr. (Alternate: Phil Kern)
U.S. Geological Survey
Menlo Park Seaport Planning Advisory Committee

Mrs. Ward Duffy Joseph C. Houghteling
Portola Valley (Alternate: Michael B. Wilmar)

Mrs. Sylvia Gregory San Francisco Bay Shellfish Progra
San Bruno
Hans J. Schiller
Mrs. Esther Gulick
Berkeley Association of Bay Area Governments,
Regional Planning Committee
Dr. Michael Herz
Oceanic Society Cynthia Kay
San Francisco. (Alternate: Jeffry S. Blanchfield)

Shiraz Kaderali Special Committee for Bryan Cease and
Pacific Gas and*Electric Company Desist Order
San Francisco
Nicholas Arguimbau, Chairman
William Newton Richard Brann
Landscape Architect Barbara Eastman
Berkeley Earl Mills
Hans J. Schiller
Burton Rockwell
American Institute of Architects Richardson Bay Special Area Plan Steering
San Francisco Committee

Henry W. Simonsen Barbara Eastman
IT Corporation Barbara kondylis
Martinez Hans J. Schiller

SCDC STAFF

Michael B. Wilmar Planning
Executive Director
Jeffry S. Bla-nchfield
Alan R. Pendleton Chief Planner
Deputy Director
Philip E. Kern
Russell A. Abramson Senior Planner
Assistant Executive Director
Nancy A. Wakeman
Regulations Senior Planner

Frank R. Broadhead Margit Hind
Chief of Regulation Coastal Program Analyst

Enforcement Linda H. Giannini
Senior Planning Secretary
Steven A. McAdam
Enforcement Investigator Jennifer R. Cherniss
Graduate Student Assistant
Robert S. Merrill
Enforcement/Permit Analyst Administration

Randa Phillips Sharon T. Louie
Enforcement/Permit Analyst Administrative Assistant

Lorez A. Patton Stephanie L. Tucker
Enf orcement/Permit Secretary Executive Secretary

Technical Montano P. Dionisio
Management Services
Norris H. Millikin
Senior Engineer Vivien E. Wright
Receptionist
Jonathan T. Smith
Staff Counsel Attorney General's Office

Tan D. Chang Kathy Mikkelson
Bay Design Analyst DeputyAttorney General

Permit Linus Masouredis
Deputy Attorney General
Robert B. Hickman
Permit Analyst Joseph Rusconi
Deputy Attorney General
Robert J. Batha
Permit Analyst Court Reporter

Linda M. Pirola Jackie Baldwin
Permit Analyst

Myrna F. Carter
Senior Permit Secretary

765r3-883 1/33 ?50 OSP

This publication was prepared,with financial
assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Ad,ministration under the
provisions of-the Feder'
al Coastal Z-one
Management Act of 1972,,,as amended.

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14110264 2