San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission annual report

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

... . ..... ..
1 IT I

. .... ... .

JE
tOASTAL ZON

INFORMATION CENTER.

lUlil'

Mal,

-i 5-1,

@'Q"

HC
107
C22
S368
1983

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Covemor
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
30 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-6080
PHONE: (415) 557-3686

December 29, 1983

Governor Deukmejian and
Members of the California Legislature:

The Commission is pleased to submit its 1983 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 2@ major and 105 administrative permits
that involved $395,000,000 of development. About 26 acres of new public access
along about six miles of shoreline will be provided once these projects are
completed. The projects will also result in 9 acres of additional Bay surface. In
addition, the Commission certified numerous Federal projects under the Federal
Coastal Act.

The Executive Director and the Commission had to issue a total of five cease
and desist orders, and 38 formal enforcement investigations were begun.
Nevertheless, over 75 percent of the incidences of permit violations and illegal Bay
fill have been corrected short of litigation or the issuance of formal cease and
desist orders.

The Commission continued its planning program to resolve major issues
affecting the Bay Plan. The Commission adopted five Bay Plan Amendments and began
work on a sixth; completed the final draft of its Water Quality Study and Richardson
Bay Special Area Plan; and began the public hearing process on the
Houseboat/Live-aboard Study. The Commisson's staff also began work on a
Transportation Element Update.of the Bay Plan, a study of General Permits for
certain types of work to eliminate the need for individual permit applications, and
a study of the Commission's control over fill in the Bay. These three latter
projects are expected to be completed in 1984.

In December, 1982, Chairman Joseph C. Houghteling submitted his resignation;
he had been a member of the Commission since March, 1971, and served as Chairman
,since August, 1975. Chairman Houghteling also served as Vice-Chairman of the San
Francisco Bay Conservation Study Commisson; whose recommendations led to the
creation of the Commission by the California Legislature in 1965. The achievements
of the Commission are due in.large part to the dedicated leadership he gave to all
who served with him on the Commission.

In mid-year, Michael B. Wilmar, Executive Director since July, 1979, resigned
desiring to return to private practice of the law. He left with the Commissionts
appreciation for his outstanding service. His Deputy, Alan R. Pendleton, was
appointed by unanimous Commission vote to be the new Executive Director.

Also in mid-year, Vice-Chairman Hans Schiller submitted his resignation; he
served on the Commission since February, 1978, and.he was Acting Chairman from
January through August, 1983.

The Commission is most appreciative of the continued public interest and
participation in its activities; the valuable contributions of the Design Review
Board, Engineering Criteria Review Board, and Citizens Advisory Committee whose
members contribute their time and knowledge; to the Attorney General's Office for
their continued fine advice and support; and especially to its staff, whose numbers
are less than the Commission itself, but who manage to produce work remarkable for
both quantity and quality. The continued cooperation of permit applicants has also
been important--to assuring a balance of conservation and development around the Bay,
and as a consequence, litigation by third parties has been negligible.

Very truly yours,

JOHN READING
JHR/gg Chairman

r __@

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 responsibility 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
thexesponsibility of preparing "a recommendations of the Suisun Marsh
corr)prehensive and enforceable 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. The
force of law. Commission certified the. components of the
Plan for SolanoCounty, Suisun City, Solano
The two objectives of the Bay Plan are: 1) County Local Agency Formation
to protect the Bay as a great natural Commission, Solano County Mosquito
resource for the benefit of present and Abatement District, and the Suisun
future generations; and 2) to develop the Resource Conservation (District. With the
Bay and its shoreline to their highest exception of the City of Benicia, which has
potential with a minimum of Bay filling. To jurisdiction over only a very small strip of
implement the Bay Plan, the Commission: the Marsh, the local protection program
certification process for the entire Marsh is
Regulates all filling and dredging in San complete.
Francisco Bay (which includes San Pablo and
Suisun Bays, sloughs and certain creeks and
tributaries that are part of the 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
development; and

* Minimizes pressures to fill the Bay by
ensuring that the limited amount of The Commission's regulatory activities fall
shoreline property suitable for regional high within three broad, overlapping areas:
priority water-oriented uses is reserved for pre-application coordination with project
these purposes. Such priority uses include: proponents; permit review and formal action
ports, water-related industry, by the Commission or Executive Director;
water-oriented recreation, airports, and. and project monitoring and enforcement
wildlife areas. activities.

0 PRE-APPLICATION WORK 0 PERMITS

The Commission encourages project The placement of fill, dredging, or any
proponents to discuss with its staff at the substantial change in use of the Bay or
earliest possible time proposals that may shoreline requires a permit. Under the
either fall within the Commission's permit BCDC law, the Commission must complete
jurisdiction, or that may affect the Bay. action on a permit application within 90
rhe staff works with the proponents, local days after a completed application has been
governments, and the public prior to the filed or the permit is automatically
actual filing and formal processing of granted. As a result, the Commission has
permit applications to assure that the, one of the most expeditious regulatory
project is in conformity with the processes in state government.
Commission's laws. This pre-application
work varies from simple inquiries Permits are classified as either "major" or
concerning jurisdiction or the proper use of "administrative." Administrative permits
fill to extensive meetings over many months are issued by the Executive Director for
with architects, designers, and the Design 11minor repairs and improvements," as
Review Board. Because project design has defined in the Commission's laws and
not been completed at this stage, project regulations. All other permits are major
sponsors find it easier to comply with permits and require a public hearing and
Commission policy; any changes can be action by the Commission. Permits are
incorporated far more easily than at later issued only if the project is consistent with
stages in the development process. the policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan
Occasionally it is found that a proposed and the McAteer-Petris Act, or the Suisun
project cannot be constructed at a given Marsh Preservation Act of 1977 and Suisun
site; such early detection reduces Marsh Protection Plan, as they apply.
frustration and costs for applicants.
The approved projects during 1983 total
approximately $395,000,000 in new
development expenditures (plus material
amendments to previously approved projects
totalling over $200,000,000 in construction
costs) and will result in a total of 4 acres of
new Bay f ill. The projects will also provide
approximately 9 acres of new Bay surface .
area; thus the net increase in new Bay Area
will be 5 acres. In addition, the projects
will provide approximately 26 acres of new
public access along about six miles of Bay
shoreline.

For the five-year period of 1979 through
1983, the Commission approved a total of
125 applications for major permits, and
denied only one. According to figures
supplied by the applicants at the time they
submitted their.applications to the
Commission, these projects total almost one
and one half billion dollars in construction
costs. Although these projects required 76
acres of new Bay fill, mitigation measures
resulted in 421 acres of new Bay surface, or
a net gain of approximately 345 acres of
Bay surface. Conditions for approval of the
permits also provide for an increase of 254
acres of new public access.

Permit Summary For 1983:

Major Permits Granted: 23
Administrative and Emergency Permits
Granted: 105
Applications Denied: 0

Major Permits

To Marina Bay Development Corporation for To Alameda Marina Village Associates, an
I
a 2.52-berth marina, parking, and related amendment to a previously approved permit
improvements at the Richmond Inner Harbor. for the development of a
Basin, Contra Costa County. Public access marina/commercial/residential and public
includes a 900-f oat pathway, viewing areas, access project near the Encinal Yacht Club
landscaping, and related improvements. in Alameda, Alameda County. The site is a
156-acre former ship building facility that
To Burlingame Office Center, Ltd. for three has deteriorated and fallen into disuse.
office buildings and parking on a 12.7-acre Extensive public access will be provided
parcel in, the Anza Airport Park subdivision, throughout the project, including parking
Burlingame, San Mateo County. Public and a landscaped pathway around the entire
access includes landscaping and pathway perimeter of the project.
along 1,800 feet of shoreline, a fishing
plaza, and a small -park. To Walter Carter for the construction of a
single-family residence on the Carquinez
To Lucky Acres Associates to fill and grade Straits in Benicia., Solana County. No public
an upland site, and make drainage and access will be provided;,however, an open
roadway improvements along the shoreline space easement will be established on the
,in East Palo Alto, San Mateo County. portion of the'lot subject to tidal action..
Public access includes a 1,050-f oat -pathway
and landscaping, and a 180-foot boardwalk To the City of Martinez to expand the
connecting with the Mid-Penin'sula Open existing Martinez Marina in Contra Costa
Space le .vee system. After completing the County. An existing 1,600-foot-long levee
improvements, the site will be subdivided now subject to tidal action will be raised
into 10, one-acre parcels and sold for and a public access pathway constructed on
development by others. it.,

To the Campeau Corporation of California To William and Gail Skarich and Joseph and
to construct 1.5 million square feet of Spronsa Ga,rske to construct a marine
office space and associated facilities in five construction yard. at the Mare Island Strait
to eight buildings at the site of the existing in Vallejo, Solana County. Public access
Marine World, Africa U.S.A. Amusement will not be provided at the site; however,
Park in Redwood City, San Mateo County. the applicant will contribute funds for
Extensive public access improvements are improvements at the nearby River Park in
planned, includinga one-mile pathway Vallejo.
around the shoreline of the project, a
1/2-mile walkway around an internal, To Suisun Shores Development to construct
man-M2de lagoon, parking, and picnicking a 165-unit residential condominium and
facilities. recreational facilities at the north end of
Suisun Slough in Suisun City, Solana
County. A public access pathway will be
constructed along the entire 970-foot side
of the project facing the tidal channel.

To Hometel Development Corporation to
construct a 360-room, hotel, a restaurant
and public services building, parking, a
fishing pier, and over 4 acres of landscaped
public access. The project is located on a
14.5-acre peninsula on the Anza Lagoon in
Burlingame, San Mateo County.

To Chevron U.S.A. Inc. to create a 1/2-acre To the Port of Oakland to demolish the
drilling pad and improve an existing levee Goodman's Convention Hall and KTVU
for exploratory drilling for natural gas. The television studio, and construct a 12-story
project is located at the convergence of office building, four-level parking garaget
Hunter Cut and Suisun Slough in the primary and a two-story building for retail shops,
management area of the Suisun Marsh, and a restaurant. The 2.8-acre site is
Solano County. If drilling is unsuccessful, located on the Oakland-Alameda Estuary in
the pad will be removed and the site Jack London Square, City of Oakland,
returned to its natural condition. If Alameda County. Public access
successful, the pad will be reduced in size improvements include two plazas adjacent
significantly and only the pump will remain to the shoreline, a boardwalk, landscaping,
at the site. No public access is proposed for and picnicking facilities.
the project.

To Chevron U.S.A. to cover boat berths at To the United States Geological Survey and
the Chevron Rod and Gun Club in Richmond, the Port of Redwood City to construct a
Contra Costa County. The public will be new berth for ocean-going USGS ships at
allowed to use a now private road giving Berth 4 on Redwood Creek, Port of
access to the East Brothers Lighthouse. Redwood City, San Mateo County. The
project requires approximately 0.3 acres of
To Pier 39 and the Port of San Francisco for new fill which will be off-set by excavation
the removal of a floating tire breakwater of a similar area creating new bay surface.
and construction of a new concrete Public access includes parking and a
sheetpile breakwater, expansion of the landscaped picnic area at the site.
existing marina from 335 to 365 berths,
relocation of the carousel to replace the To the City of Emeryville for a revision to
diving pool, construction of a 0.9-acre park, the previously approved Public Benefits Plan
and other related improvements. Pier 39 is provided under Commission permit 1-70.
located on the northern waterfront near The permit authorized the Emeryville
Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco. In -Marina complex, just north of the Bay
add.ition to extensive public access on Pier Bridge in Alameda County. This amendment
39, the project includes construction of a authorizes the City to delete a pedestrian
public park on the Embarcadero between and bicycle crossing at the Southern Pacific-
Piers 35 and 39, at a site now used as a railroad tracks near Powell Street. In its
storage yard. This project is unusual in that place, the City will purchase and improve a
the proponents will sell long-term leases for parcel of land near the Emery Cove Marina
the berths in the marin 'a and use the capital and improve a portion of the Albany Spit,
to fund construction of the breakwater. At both for public access purposes.
least 18 percent of the berths will continue
to be short-term rentals. To Robert Klemmedson and Clarence
Richard to redevelop a 3.5-acre site
adjacent to Suisun Slough in Suisun City,
Solano County. The project includes
expansion of the existing marina from 33 to
75 berths, construction of boat sales and
repair facilities, four retail/office buildings,
and relocation and restoration of an old
railroad station to be used as a restaurant.
In additon to extensive public access
throughout the project, a 750-foot pathway
along the shoreline will be constructed.

To the Ashton Company and American To the California Department of
Savings and Loan to develop the southerly Transportation (Caltrans) to widen and
27 acres of Strawberry Spit near Strawberry improve Route 1-180, and build a new
Peninsula in Marin County. The site will be interchange at Bay View Avenue in the City
subdivided into 62 single family residential of Richmond, Contra Costa County. This is
lots. Construction of the homes, estimated the first segment of proposed improvements
to be in the 1/2 to 1 1/2 million dollar to the Hoffman Transportation Corridor.
range, is allowed by the permit, and will Public access includes an approximately
.begin as plans for the individual homes are 1/2- mile pathway from the interchange to
approved by the Commission's staff. Public the shoreline and a bike lane on the Bayview
access includes a 3,340-foot pathway along Interchange.
the perimeter shoreline of the project,
parking, and three small viewing plazas. To the Port of San Francisco and Fresno
The applicant will also dredge a 100-foot Partners, an amendment to a previously
wide navigable channel, creating a 10-acre approved permit allowing the historic
"island" at the northern end of the ferryboat Fresno to be moored at Pier 3,
peninsula. This area will be set aside for near the Ferry Building in San Francisco.
wildlife purposes, and contains one of the The ferryboat will be completely renovated
last remaining harbor seal haul-out areas in and used for offices. Ten thousand square
the Bay. feet of public access, including an historic
display, will be provided on the ferryboat,
To Emery Bay Cove, Ltd. to amend their plus another 12,000 square feet of open
existing permit for the construction of the space on Pier 3.
430-berth Emery Cove Marina, located just
north of the Bay Bridge in Emeryville, To the Burlingame Group to construct a
Alameda County. The amendment 300-roorn hotel, two restaurants, parking,
authorizes the applicant to subdivide the and public access on an 8.8 acre site on the
marina and sell the berths. At least 10 Anza Lagoon in Burlingame, San Mateo
percent of the berths will continue to be County. Extensive public access and
rented. The applicant will deposit $100,000 la,ndscaping will be provided throughout the
with the East Bay Regional Park District for project, including a 1,115-foot pathway@
public access improvements. system around the shoreline of the project.

To Encinal Industries, Inc. and H.P.
Anderson and Co. to renovate and enlarge
an existing marine terminal from one
container berth to three container berths,
and to expand an existing marina by the
addition of 228 berths. The project is
located at Encinal Terminal on the
Oakland-Alameda Estuary in the City of
Alamedap Alameda County. The project
includes approximately 1.4 acres of
improved public access at the site. The
applicant will convey $44,800 to the East
Bay Regional Park District for use in a tidal
restoration project to mitigate the 3.5 acres
of new fill for this project.

Administrative Permits

The Executive Director is authorized to To the Part of San Francisco for
issue permits for proposals meeting certain construction of a container gantry crane at
criteria in order to reduce the time required Pier 80. This application was processed as
to process applications. The Executive an administrative permit because no new fill
Director issued 105 "administrative" permits in the Bay was required and the increase in
in 1983. The permits ranged from the capacity was already incorporated in the
simple, shore maintenance and small dock recently adopted Seaport Plan.
constfuc t! onI, to the more complex: To Frank P. Green@e for the construction of
To Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District for a small portion of a 66,000-square-foot
various facilities to dispose of wastewater office park adjacent to the Corte Madera
effluent from the District's plant. A Ecological Reserve, Marin County. The
20-acre wildlife marsh pond and about 3 project includes development of a 40,000
miles of trails were provided along existing square foot public access and wildlife area,
levees near McInnis Park, Marin County. and a 1,600-foot public access pathway
along the reserve.
To JDO Company for 6,000 square feet of
parking. One hundred and forty feet of To the California Department of Fish and
pathway was provided along Belmont Slough, Game for dredging and construction to
San Mateo County. protect and enhance wildlife habitat in an
abandoned salt pond and existing tidal marsh
To East Bay Regional Park District for a on Bair Island, San Mateo County. A nesting
200-f obt wooden bridge across San Lorenzo area of the endangered least tern has been
Creek to allow continuous public access identified in the area.
along the shoreline, and, as part of a State
Coastal Conservancy grant for the To the Suisun Marsh Natural History
enhancement of Hayward Marsh, a Association for construction of
1,000-foot public access pathway along approximately 3/4 miles of trails atop
existing levees. levees in the Peytonia Slough Ecological
Reserve, Solana County.
To Santa Clara Valley Water District to
raise and strengthen levees along Alviso To the City of Sausalito for a marsh
Slough, Santa Clara County. About 3,400 resortation project in Dunphy Park, Marin
feet of public access pathway is included County. The project is funded by a State
,along the levees. Coastal Conservancy grant.

To the City of Sunnyvale, to restore and To Sea and Meteorology, Inc. to install
improve about 4.2 miles of existing levees telemetering data stations at various
along Sunnyvale and Guadalupe Sloughs in locations around the Bay to record and
Santa Clara County. Public access transmit tide and wind readings. Data
pathways along the entire levee system and collected will be transmitted directly to the
a 15-car parking lot at the entrance to the ports to allow them to schedule arrivals and
levee trail were included. departures of ships.

Suisun Marsh Permits Consistency Determinations

Under the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act of Under the terms of the Federal Coastal
1977, local governments and special Zone Management Act, the Commission
districts with jurisdiction in the reviews proposals involving federal
100-square-mile Suisun Marsh in southern activities within or directly affecting the
Solano County have prepared components of Bay segment of the California Coastal Zone
a local protection program for their areas of for consistency with the Commission's
the Marsh. A marsh development permit is federally approved Management Program.,
required for any development in the Marsh: During 1983, the Commission acted on
The Commission issues th& permit within several federal projects, including:
the "primary management area," which
includes the wetlands within the Marsh; The National Park Service's removal of a
local governments issue the permit within landslide and reconstruction and
the "secondary management area," which replacement of roadway, seawall, and other
surrounds the primary management area and repairs at Fort Point, Golden Gate National
consists mainly of agricultural land that is Recreation Area, San Francisco.
part of the Marsh ecological system. Both
types of permits must be consistent with the The Department of the Navy's dredging and
local protection program, the construction of various improvements at
McAteer-Petris Act, and the Suisun Marsh Mare Island in Solano County and Treasure
Preservation Act. Island in San Francisco County.

Marsh development permits issued by local The. United States Army Corps of Engineers'
governments in the secondary management regional permit authorizing certain minor
area are.appealable to the Commission. repair and improvement projects within San
However in 1983, no permits were appealed Francisco Bay. The Commission granted
to the Commission. This was due in part to consistency certification for all activities
close coordination between applicants, local covered by the permit and thereby
governments, and the Commission. eliminated the need for each project to be
certified individually.
Although the Commission granted only one The Commission also determined that 27
significant permit in the primary existing and two proposed nation-wide Corps
management area of the Marsh in 1983, permits were consistent with the
considerable staff time was devoted to Management Program if the Corps amends
pre-application discussions on a wide variety the permits so that the Corps permit for a
of projects within the primary and specific project would not take affect until
secondary management areas, including the Commission had first issued a permit for
construction of piers and docks, nature the project. The Corps is reviewing the
trails, corrosion protection for existing proposal.
pipelines, reconstruction and raising of
levees, improvement of land fill and levees The Department of the Army's placement of
in duck clubs, extensive dredging of sand to riprap and other shoreline improvements on
be sold for, commercial purposes, the Emeryville Peninsula, Alameda County.
construction of a trailer manufacturing
facility, development of a cemetary for the
burial of small pets, and construction of
commercial wind turbine generators.

0 ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

In 1977, the Commission began a much The Commission issued a stipulated order
needed enforcement program. Under the for non-compliance with a permit for
program, the Commission investigates construction of a restaurant behind the
reports of unauthorized fill and construction historic Ferry Building in San Francisco. The
within its jurisdiction and reviews all permittee had not completed required public
permits issued. since September 1965 for access and landscaping prior to operation of
compliance with various permit conditions. the restaurant and was using portions of the
public access area for parking. The
During, 1983, the enforcement staff initiated permittee has since brought the operation
38 formal investigations, continued its into compliance with the permit and order.
investigation into 62 previously initiated
cases and investigated numerous other In December of 1982, the Commission issued
reports of possible violations. In most two permits for adjacent automobile
cases, after the staff identified the problem processing and storage yards that had
and contacted the responsible party, already been constructed along the
satisfactory solutions were reached. Since Carquinez. Strait in the City of Benicia,
the program began, approximately 75 S61ano County. The applicant refused to
percent of the bases have been resolved by execute the two permits because of
voluntary compliance or by permit disagreement with several permit
amendment. conditions. Therefore, the Executive
Director issued two cease and desist orders
Although most enforcement matters involve that prohibited use of the facilities within
minor infractions with the parties willing to the Commission's jurisdiction. The
cooperate to resolve them quickly, some applicant.sued the Commission challenging
cases require stronger enforcement the disputed permit conditions and has
measures. In 1983, the Commission and the agreed not to use the areas in question until
Executive Director issued a total of five litigation is resolved.
cease and desist orders:
An aggregate recycling facility located in
A cease and desist order was issued because South San Francisco, San Mateo County, was
of construction of boat docks and other found to'be operating after their permit. had
shoreline improvements in unapproved expired and required public access had never
locations and without the required plan been constructed. The staff is working with
approval, and for failing to provide public the permittee to develop a schedule for
access improvements in the City of removing the facility and for providing the
Oakland, Alameda County. The public public access for inclusion into a stipulated
access and remainder of the project are now order.
in conformance with the permit and
stipulated order.

0 PLANNING ACTIVITIES

Houseboats and Live-aboards Fill Controls

In July, 1983@ the Commission began public Although the Bay Plan policies on fill in the
hearings on its study of houseboats and Bay were partially amended in 1971, no
live-aboards in the Bay. The report was comprehensive review has taken place since
prepared in tandem with a staff report on they were adopted despite many intervening
Recreational Boating Facilities adopted by court cases, new legislat! o*n and Commission
the Commission in December 1982 in experience with permits. This study, begun
response to Commission concerns about in 1982 and being coordinated with the
marinas in general.. Houseboat marinas have Houseboat and Live-aboard Study, will cover
been authorized by the Commission only in legislation and court decisions affecting the
limited circumstances primarily to cleanup Commisson's authority, the adequacy of
situations which pre-existed the existing Bay Plan policies, mitigation for
Commission. There has been a significant authorized Bay fill 'and the implications of
increase in the numbers of such vessels, the public trust on the actions of the
causing marina operators and developers and Commission. The study is conducted in
local governments to seek guidiance from cooperation with the Office of the Attorney
the Commission for their authorization. General and other legal consultants, and
with the participation of other interested
The study reviewed trends and forecasts, parties around the Bay. It is expected to be
impacts and benefits, and existing presented to the Commission in the Spring
governmental authority, and concluded with of 1984.
proposed amendments to the Bay Plan
policies. Several hundred people attended California Coastal Conservancy
the public hearings held in San Francisco
and Suasalito. Because of the great Since 1981, the Commission began working
interest, the Commission extended the closely with the Conservan .cy, planning and
comment period until February 29, 1984. analyzing grant applications for projects
under the public access, wetlands
The report found that many live-aboards and enhancement, and urban waterfront
houseboats exist around the Bay Area; that programs.% Proposals are reviewed also to
some vessels provide a service to assure that they are consistent with the Bay
recreational marinas and boaters in general Plan.
by improving security and protecting boats
in severe storms; "limited numbers" of boats In 1983, the Commission approved the City
can be authorized in marinas for the purpose of Sausalito's proposal to enhance a wetland
of supporting the recreational boating uses; in Dunphy Park, Marin County. The $29,000
and that in some areas water quality project will improve wildlife habitat and
problems may be exacerbated by release of serve as a model for non-structural erosion
wastewater from houseboats and control. Although there was no other
live-aboards. New information and funding for Bay Area projects in 1983, the
comments on the report will be incorporated Conservancy expects a new round of funding
into a revised staff report next spring. in 1984.
Public hearings would preceed any
Commission actionon the proposed Bay Plan In addition, the Commission's staff reviewed
policy. amendments. and commented on several planning reports
prepared by the Conservancy staff,
including possible mitigation land bank
criteria and possible funding programs for
storm damaged recreational facilities.

East Bay Regional Park District Richardson Bay Special Area Plan
The Commission adopted a memorandum of Special Area Plans apply the general Bay
understanding with the District f or- a Plan policies in greater detail to specific
mitigation program that would allow project. shoreline areas. The Commission has
sponsors to contribute to a fund for the adopted three Special Area Plans: in San
restoration and maintenance of a 200-acre Francisco, Benicia, and Richmond. In 1983,
site along the Hayward shoreline in Alameda the Commission, in cooperation with the
County. Because of the scarcity of suitable County of Marin and the cities of Sausalito,
land, sponsors find it difficult and costly to Mill Valley, Tiburon, and Belvedere began
provide adequate mitigation for many the process for preparing 2 Special Area
construction projects proposed along the Plan for Richardson Bay in southern Marin
shoreline. The program, already utilized by County. The study is partially funded by a
two applicants in 1983, will eventually see grant from the San Francisco Foundation. A
the return of the area, to a tidal Marsh. Steering Committee composed of a
representative of the Marin County Board of
Energy Facilities Supervisors, one member each from the city
councils, and three representatives of the
The Commission coordinates with the Commission are guiding preparation'of a
California Energy Commission in reviewing recommended plan. The Commission
potential power plant sites within the Bay representatives are Commissioner Barbara
and conducts ongoing review of sites Kondylis, Hans Schiller, and Barbara
proposed for the construction and Eastman. Commissioner Albert Aramburu is
transportation of off-shore oil drilling and Marin County's representative and Chairman
of f-shore mining equipment, natural gas of the Steering Committee. Alternate
exploration in the Suisun Marsh, and review Commissioner Carol Singer-Peltz represents
of wind powered electricity generators in Sausalito on the Committee. A 50-member
the vicinity of the Suisun Marsh-. Advisory Committee assists the Steering
Committee in the planning process.
Water Pollution Study
During the past year the Steering
Although,the Commission does not exercise Committee has taken action on the five
extensive water pollution control authority planning background reports which have
under the McAteer-Petris Act, the been prepared by the Commission's staff and
Commission does attempt to minimize or consultants. The draft Richardson Bay .
reduce the water quality impacts of the Special Area Plan, based on the background
projects it authorizes. Begun in early 19B3, reports, will be ready for consideration by
the water pollution study reviews changes the Steering Committee in January,. 1984.
,made since the late sixties in water It is anticipated that the recommended Plan
pollution control regulations and the current will be adopted by the Steering Committee
state of water quality in. the Bay to in early 1984 and forwarded to each agency
determine if the Bay Plan findings and for adoption.
policies on water pollution should be
amended, and what requirements may be
appropriate for the Commission to impose in
permits to control pollution. The
Commission will consider the staff report in
early 1984.

Bay Plan Amendments

In order to keep the Bay Plan up-to-date, and also found that certain salt ponds and
the Commission continually reviews the other shoreline areas were incorrectly
Plan's findings, policies and map designated on various Bay Plan maps. The
designations, and often reviews specific Commission adopted the amendment
policies or map designations at the request correcting the Bay Plan maps.
of local governments. After an extensive
public hearing process, a proposed No. 6-83. At the request of the City of San
amendment can be adopted only after a Leandro, the Commission began a review of
two-thirds vote of the entire Commission. the proposed deletion of waterfront Park
In 1983, the Commission considered six Beach priority use designation at a 5.5-acre
amendments: site east of the Oyster Bay Regional
Shoreline in Alameda County. The
No. 1-83. At the request of Contra Costa Commission will begin public hearings on
County, the Commission reviewed various the proposal in early 1984.
sites that had been mischaracterized as
upland, when in fact, they were marsh. The Highway 101 Study
adopted amendment corrects the
mischaracterization and also brings the In late 1982, the Commission completed a
affected Bay Plan maps into conformance joi6t study with the Metropolitan
with the County's planning and zoning for Transportation Commission (MTC) to assess
the areas. the traffic impacts along Highway 101 on
the peninsula and its potential to create
No. 2-83. The City of South San Francisco pressure for Bay fill to accomodate new or
requested that an area designated in the Bay expanded highways. Newly,completed and
Plan as Waterfront Park, Beach be relocated proposed projects in the area involve over
to another area near the Oyster Point 20,000,000 square feet of retail, office, and
Buisness Park, San Mateo County. The industrial space; over 6,000 new hotel
Commission found that the relocation would rooms, and approximately 7,500 new
not change the quantity nor the quality of residential units. The study found that
public access in the area and adopted the there was substantial potential impact on
proposed amendment. the regional transportation system and a
potential for Bay fill for roadways to
No. 3-83. This proposed amendment would accomodate the increased traffic. As a
change the Plan findings and policies result, the Commission in 1983, encouraged
concerning houseboats and would add new local governments, the Department of
findings and policies concerning live-aboards Transportation, MTC, transit districts, and
based on the staff's Houseboat and other agencies to develop cooperativelY a
Live-aboard Study described above. strategy for coordinating transportation
Because of extensive public and press along the corridor. The Commission
interest in the study, Commission action has authorized its staff to participate in such
been postponed until early 1984 to allow studies and advised local agencies that
additional comment and study. comments on any projector environmental
No. 4-83. The Port of San Francisco document involved with new development
requested the Commission to amend the San along Highway 101 should consider future
Francisco Total Design Plan to allow three, pressure f or Bay fill needed to accomoda te
rather than two, historic ships to be moored traffic resulting from the development.
permanently near Pier 3; and to make other
changes to nearby historic bulkhead Following up on the initial Highway 101
buildings adjacent to the Ferr Building. study, MTC initiated a comprehensive study
y
The Commission adopted the amendment. of Highway 101 and its future traffic
demands, traffic management strategies,
No.. 5-83. Since the Bay Plan was reprinted and traffic mitigation alternatives.
in 1979, several changes in the Bay have Commissioner Earl Mills, representing the
occurred as a result of marsh restoration Commission on MTC, and the Commission's
projects authorized by the Commisson. The staff participated in the study. Final action
Commission's staff reviewed these changes on the study by MTC is expected in 1984.

9 LEGISLATION 0 LEGAL ACTIVITIES

The Commission reviewed and took positions In 1983, the Commission was involved in
on several bills affecting the Bay or the several important law suits that raised
Commission's policies. Of these, the most, major land use, issues affecting the
important were: Commission. Three major suits were
continued from prior years:
SB 834. Along with several other agencies
and public interest groups, the Commission State of California ex rel. San Francisco
opposed this bill which would have Bay Conservation and Development
terminated the public trust on certain Commission v. United States, et al. In June
tidelands and submerged lands in the Delta 1980, the United States General Services
and Suisun Marsh. The bill became a Administration (GSA) announced its final
two-year bill and will be considered again in disposition of Hamilton Air Force Base in
1984. Marin County. The Commission believed
the proposed disposition was not consistent
AB 215. The Commission opposed this bill with the BCDC law or the Bay Plan, which
which would have. transferred certain - designated Hamilton for airport priority use
tidelands and submerged lands to a private to reduce pressures for airport fill at other
party without the corresponding benefit to bayfront airports. The Commission filed
the public as required by existing law. The suit against GSA to require submission and
bill was eventually amended to maintain Commission approval of a consistency
public ownership of the tide and submerged determination under the federal Coastal
lands while transferring previously filled Zone Management Act.
.lands to the private party.
The Metropolitan Transportation
SB 1258. The Commission opposed this bill, Commission intervened in the lawsuit,
which would have altered the composition of joining the Commission in its complaint and
the Commission and the qualifications for raising other objections as well. In addition,
Chairman and Vice-Chairman and could the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a
have affected the balance of locally elected separate lawsuit objecting to the disposal
officials, state and federal representatives, decision on behalf of the Marin Coalition, 2
and public members. The bill was not local business interest group. The County of
passed. Marin and City of Navato intervened in both
lawsuits on the side of GSA.
At the beginning of 1983, the parties to the
lawsuits began to explore the possibility of
settlement. Out of these discussions
evolved the Hamilton Air Force Base
"Roundtable", which includes
representatives of each of the litigants.
The roundtable provides a forum in which
the parties can develop a factual basis for
settlement discussions and then attempt to
reach a settlement. Meeting monthly, the
roundtable has made significant progress
toward a settlement agreement. It has
developed controls to assure that any civil
aviation at Hamilton will be limited to
general aviation aircraft, and the parties
represented on the roundtable have
accepted the@ controls as part of a possible
settlement. It has also undertaken studies
of the economic feasibility of a general
aviation airport at Hamilton and of the.
institutional arrangements necessary to
finance and operate such an airport. The
roundtable discussions are expected to
continue into 1984.

The Commission was also involved in other
significant legal matters first raised in 1983:

State of California v. Gianulias, et al. Benicia Industries v. BCDC

Prior to 1982, the State of California sued In December 1982, the Commission issued
to stop George Gianulias from filling his permits to Benicia Industries, Inc. to
property located near the White.Slough area authorize two existing automobile
of Vallejo without a Commission permit. processing and storage yards located on
The court issued a preliminary injunction, Suisun Bay in Benicia, Solano County.
and during 1983, the court held Mr. Special conditions required public access
Gianulias in contempt for his continued along a levee separating the yards from the
filling in violation of the court order. The Bay, mitigation for filling approximately 5
Court also determined that the regulations acres of wetlands, and the permanent
on which the Commission had based its dedication of the remaining part of Benicia
jurisdiction were-lawful and upheld the Industries' property that is under water as
Commission's jurisdiction over the area at open space to create a permanent public
issue. The Court reserved until early 1984 a shoreline. Benicia Industries sued the
determination of.what relief should grant Commission to challenge the conditions, and
regarding the illegal fill; the court also the case is being pursued.
reserved a determination of how to punish
Mr. Gianulias for the contempt of court.
The court will review these matters in early
1984.

Leslie Salt Company v. BCDC

In 1980, the Commission issued a cease and
desist order to the Leslie Salt Company to
require the removal of fill and a barge-like
structure placed illegally by unknown
persons on Leslie's property in and around
Alviso Slough. Leslie sued the Commission
to invalidate the order, arguing that the
Commission lacked the authority to order a
landowner to remove fill that unknown
persons had placed illegally on the
landowner's property. In 1981, the trial
court agreed with Leslie and issued a writ of
mandate ordering the Commission to set
aside the cease and desist order. The
Commission appealed this decision. In
December 1983 the Court of Appeal heard
oral argument on the case, and is expected
to issue an opinion early in 1984.

Corps Permit Regulation Changes Review of Commission Regulations

The Corps of Engineers has regulatory In December 1983, the Commission's staff
authority over San Francisco Bay, its concluded a review of all the Commission's
tributaries, and its surrounding wetlands regulations as required by AB 1111 and the
under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Governor's program. This two-year effort
Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean considered compliance with five criteria:
Water Act. The Corps' jurisdiction includes authority, necessity, clarity, consistency,
most of the areas over which the and reference. Public Hearings on the
Commission has jurisdiction and extends to existing regulations and proposed changes
other important areas, such as the diked are scheduled f or January and February
historic baylands, over which the 1984. After receiving public comment, the
Commission does not have jurisdiction. staff will determine what changes to
Thus, the Commission has a continuing present to the Commission for action in the
interest in the-, implementation of the Corps' Spring of 1984.
regulatory program.

On May 12, 1983, the Corps issued a notice
that it was proposing changes to its
regulations. The Commission commented on
those proposed changes commending the San
Francisco District on the fine job it was
doing with its existing regulatory program
and supported generally the goals of
simplifying the permit process, reducing
unnecessary -delays, and preventing possible
abuses. However, the Commission objected
that the proposed amendments would not
meet these goals and would weaken
substantially the existing protection for
wetlands.

The Corps subsequently held a public
hearing on the proposed changes and
appointed an in-house task force to review
all comments on the changes. The Corps
has not yet issued any final regulations
based on the proposed changes.

0 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 (Alternates shown in parentheses)
during 1983 were:

PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES

Appointed by the Governor: United States Army Corps of Engineers
Colonel Edward Lee
John H. Reading, Chairman (Calvin Fong)
Oakland
(Robert E. Mortensen) Environmental Protection Agency
Vacant
John C. Dustin, Vice-Chairman
Redwood City
Hans J. Schiller,* Vice-Chairman
Mill Valley STATE REPRESENTATIVES
(Richard C. Wilde)
(Alice Graham*) Regional Water Quality Control Board
Barbara B. Eastman*
Donald C. DeLutis, San Francisco (Polly Smith*)
Denis T. Rice,* Tiburon
(Kirsten Olsenf) Resources Agency
Michael D. McCollum
Angelo J. Siracusa, Mill Valley Donald L. Lollock*
Cynthia Kay,* Vallejo (Mark Timmerman)
(Nicholas Arguimbau*) (Brian Hunter*)

Robert R. Tufts, San Francisco Department of Finance
Paul Chignell,* San Anselmo Chon Gutierrez
(David A. Thompson) (Thomas Dithridge)
(S. Calvin Smith*)
Appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly: State Lands Commission
Earl P. Mills, San Francisco Claire T. Dedrick
(David Jenkins) (Diane R. Jones)

Appointed by the Senate Rules Committee: Business and Transportation Agency
Burch Bachtold
Elizabeth Osborn, Fremont Norman Kelley*
(Patricia Shelton) (William J. Dowd)

LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES

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

Alameda County Councilman Arthur Lepore
Supervisor John T. George City of Millbrae
(William H. Fraley) (Supervisor Louise Renne,* San Francisco)

Contra Costa County Councilwoman Barbara Kondylis
Supervisor Tom Powers City of Vallejo
(Supervisor Nancy Fahden) (Mayor Carol Singer-Peltz, City of Sausalito)

Marin County. Mayor Dianne McKenna
Supervisor Albert Aramburu City of Sunnyvale
(Supervisor Harold C. Brown, Jr.) (Councilman Robert Bury, City of Redwood
city)
Napa County
Supervisor Robert E. White Councilman Frank H. Ogawa
(Supervisor Mel Varrelman) City of Oakland
(Mayor Valance Gill, City of San Leandro)
San Francisco County
Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver
Supervisor John L. Molinari*
(Dian Blomquist*)

Santa Clara County
Supervisor Rebecca Q. Morgan
(Supervisor. Thomas L. Legan)

San Mateo County
Supervisor Anna Eshoo
Supervisor K. Jacqueline Speier* REPRESENTATIVES OF THE LEGISLATURE
(Mayor Roberta Teglia)
Senate:
Solano County
Supervisor Richard Brann Senator Dan McCorquodale
(Supervisor Osby Davis) Senator Jim, Nielsen*

Sonoma County Assembly:
Supervisor Bob Adams
(Donald Head) Assemblyman Dominic Cortese

Commission Members or Alternates who
no longer serve on the Commission after
1983

0 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 0 ENGINEERING CRITERIA REVIEW BOARD

Members of the volunteer, Design Review Members of this Board are specialists in the
Board advise the Commission on the fields of structural engineering, soils
appearance, design9 and public access of engineering, geology, engineering geology,
proposed projects. Because the Commission and architecture. They advise the
may only approve a project if it provides 'Commission on the safety of proposed Bay
maximum feasible public access consistent fill projects. Board members volunteer
with the project, the advice of the Board their time for multidisciplinary review of
regarding such projects is a critical part of projects proposed in earthquake-prone areas
the permit application process. with problematic soil conditions.
Jacob Robbins, Chairman Dr. Robert E. Wallace, Geologist
Architect/Planner U.S. Geological Survey
Robbins and Ream Menlo Park
San Francisco Chairman
Mai Arbegast, Landscape Architect Joseph P. Nicoletti, Structural
Berkeley Engineer
John A. Blume and Associates
.Eldon Beck, Landscape Architect Vice-Chairman
Mill Valley San Francisco
Eric Elsesser, Civil and Structural Prof. James M. Duncan, Soils Engineer
Engineer University of California
Fore II/Elsesser/Chan, Structural Berkeley
Engineers
San Francisco Donald Harms, Architect
Friedman, Sagar, McCarthy and Miller
John Field, Architect San Francisco
Field/Gruzen, Associated Architects
San Francisco Dr. Richard H. Jahns, Geologist
Stanford University
Stanley Gould, Architect Palo Alto
Design Professionals, Inc.
San Jose Eugene A. Miller, Soils Engineer
Harlan, Miller, Tait Associates
Hideo Sasaki, Landscape Architect/Site San Francisco
Planner
Berkeley Alan L. O'Neill, Engineering Geologist
Lafayette
Kenneth Simmons, Architect
Community Design Collaborative Dr. Egor P. Popov, Structural Engineer
Oakland University of California
Berkeley

John E. Rinne, Structural Engineer
Kensington

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

Raymond Lundgren, Soils Engineer*
Woodward-Clyde Consultant
Board Member who resigned during 1983 San Francisco

CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The legislatively mandated Citizens Henry W. Simonsen
Advisory Committee assists and advises the IT Corporation
Commission -in carrying out its Martinez
responsibilities. The 20-member Committee
is representative of a broad cross-section of Dwight. Steele
interests concerned with the future of San Attorney
Francisco Bay and its shoreline. Walnut Creek

Walter A. Abernathy Richard Trudeau
Port of Oakland East Bay Regional Park District
Oakland
Rose Beatty
Los Altos (Five Vacancies)

Henry Bostwick, Jr.
San Mateo County Development
Association
San Mateo Other Commissions, Committees and Boards
(Commission and Staff Representatives):
Richard M. Boswell
Pacific Inter-Club Yacht Association Metropolitan Transportation Commission
El Cerito
Commissioner Earl P. Mills
Robert D. Brown, Jr.
U. S. Geological Survey Regional Airport Planning Committee
Menlo Park
Vice Chairman John C. Dustin
Mrs. Ward Duffy Vice Chairman Hans J. Schiller*
Portola Valley (Alternate: Phillip Kern)

Sylvia Gregory Seaport Planning Advisory Committee
San Bruno
Commissioner Tom Powers
Esther Gulick Commissioner Robert Tufts
Berkeley (Alternate: Michael B. Wilmar*)

Dr. Michael Herz San Francisco Bay Shellfish Program
Oceanic Society
San Francisco Hans J. Schiller*

Shiraz Kaderali Association of Bay Area
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Governments, Regional
San Francisco Planning Committee

William Newton Vice-Chairman John Dustin
Landscape Architect Commissioner Cynthia Kay*
Berkeley (Alternate: Jeffry S. Blanchfield)

Burton Rockwell Richardson Bay Special Area Plan Steering
American Institute of Architects Committee
San Francisco
Commissioner Barbara Eastman
Commissioner Barbara Kondylis
Hans J. Schiller

Commissioners and Staff members who
resigned during 1983

0 COMMISSION STAFF

Alan R. Pendleton Planning
Michael B. Wilmar*
Executive Director Jeffry S. Blanchfield
Frank R. Broadhead Chief Planner
Acting Deputy Director Phillip E. Kern
Senior Planner
Russell A. Abramson
Assistant Executive Director Margit Hind
Pe.rmits Coastal Program Analyst
Nancy A. Wakeman Linda H. Giannini
. Acting Chief of Permits Senior Planning Secretary
Robert J. Batha Glenn R. Kistner
Permit Analyst Jennifer R. Cherniss*
Graduate Student Assistants

Linda. M. Pirola Legislation
Permit Analyst
Steven A. McAdam
Myrna F. Carter Assistant Executive Director for
Senior Permit Secretary Governmental Affairs

Enforcement Administration

Robert B. Hickman Sharon T. Louie
Enforcement Investigator Administrative Assistant

Robert S. Merrill Stephanie L. Tucker
Enforcement/Permit Analyst Executive Secretary

Randa Phillips Montano P. Dionisio
Enforce ment/P ermit Analyst Management Services Technician

Lorez A. Patton* Grace Gomez
Enforcement/Permit Secretary Vivien Wright*
Technical Receptionist
Norris H. Millikin Attorney General's Office
Senior Engineer Kathy Mikkelson
Deputy Attorney General
Jonathan T. Smith
Staff Counsel Linus Masouredis
Deputy Attorney General
Tan D. Chang
Bay Design Analyst Joseph Rusconi
Deputy Attorney General

Court Reporter

Paul Schiller
Jackie Baldwin*

Staff members who resigned from the
Commission during 1983

20 78238-883 2/84 750 OSP

NOAA COAS A SERVICES CT LIBRARY

3 6663 141'01298 0

This publication was prepared with financial
assistance from the U.S. Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration under the
provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended.

John Harding/Photo
Tan Chang/Design
T