San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission - San Francisco Bay Conservation and ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, California 94105 tel 415 352 3600 fax 888 348 5190
State of California | Gavin Newsom – Governor | info@BCDC.ca.gov | www.BCDC.ca.gov
January 29, 2021
TO: All Commissioners and Alternates
FROM: Lawrence J. Goldzband, Executive Director (415/352-3653; larry.goldzband@bcdc.ca.gov)
Peggy Atwell, Director, Administrative & Technology Services (415/352-3638; peggy.atwell@bcdc.ca.gov)
SUBJECT: Draft Minutes of January 21, 2021, Virtual Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order. The virtual meeting was called to order by Chair Wasserman at 1:03 p.m.
The meeting was held online via Zoom and teleconference.
2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Wasserman, Vice Chair Halsted (represented by Alternate
Chappell), Commissioners Addiego, Ahn, Butt, Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Eckerle,
Eisen, Gioia, Gorin, Gunther, Lee (represented by Alternate Scharff), Lucchesi (represented by
Alternate Pemberton), Moulton-Peters, Peskin, Pine, Ranchod (represented by Alternate Nelson),
Randolph, Showalter, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Vacant (represented by
Alternate Hillmer) and Wagenknecht. Senator Skinner, (represented by Alternate McCoy was also
present.
Chair Wasserman announced that a quorum was present.
Not present were Commissioners: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Beach), Department of
Finance (Vacant), Department of Business Transportation & Housing (Vacant), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (Ziegler)
3. Public Comment Period. Chair Wasserman called for public comment on subjects that
were not on the agenda. Chair Wasserman gave the following instructions: First I would like to
note that we will go out of order today. We will take up Item 11 regarding the agreement with
Sausalito before we take up Item 8. Now, I want to quickly share some instructions on how we can
best participate in this meeting so that it runs as smoothly as possible. First, everyone, please
make sure you have your microphones or phones muted to avoid background noise. For
Commissioners, if you have a webcam please make sure that it is on so everyone can see you. For
members of the public, if you would like to speak either during our open, public-comment period
or during a public-comment period that is part of an Agenda Item you will need to do so in one of
two ways. First, if you are attending on the Zoom platform, please raise your hand In Zoom. If you
are new to Zoom and you joined our meeting using the Zoom application, click the Participants
icon at the bottom of your screen and look in the box where your name Is listed under Attendees,
and find the small hand to the left. If you click on that hand, it will raise your hand. Second, if you
are joining our meeting via phone, you must press *6 on your keypad to raise your hand to make a
comment. We will call on individuals who have raised their hands in the order that they are
raised. After you are called on you will be unmuted so that you can share your comments.
Remember, you have a limit of 3 minutes to speak on an item. Please keep your comments
respectful and focused. We are here to listen to everyone who wishes to address us. But everyone
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20212
has the responsibility to act in a civil manner. We will not tolerate hate speech, threats made
directly or indirectly or abusive language. We will mute anyone who fails to follow those
guidelines or exceeds the established time limit without permission. Every now and then you will
hear me refer to the meeting "host" — our BCDC staff are acting as hosts for the meeting behind
the scenes to ensure that the technology moves the meeting forward smoothly and efficiently.
BCDC has also established an email address to compile public comments for our meetings.
It is all one word, no caps, publiccomment@bcdc.ca.gov. We have received emails from 24 parties
that have been shared with all the Commissioners prior to the meeting and are available on our
website. If we receive any additional emails during the meeting they will be shared with the
Commissioners and placed on the on the website with the other public comments.
This brings us to the Public Comment period. We have no public comments today.
Chair Wasserman moved to Approval of the Minutes.
4. Approval of Minutes of the December 17, 2020 Meeting. Chair Wasserman asked for a
motion and a second to adopt the minutes of December 17, 2020.
MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved approval of the Minutes, seconded by
Commissioner Eisen.
The motion carried by a voice vote with no “NO” votes and Commissioners Moulton-Peters
and Nelson voting “ABSTAIN”.
5. Report of the Chair. Chair Wasserman reported on the following: We began yesterday a
new time for our country and a new time for the things that many of us care greatly about. And
although there were a number of very significant actions taken yesterday by the new president,
one of the most significant and certainly important for us is his Executive Order to have the United
States of America rejoin the Paris Accords.
It is an important act in reality and symbolically. It is a very hopeful act for the country.
There has been a new report issued perhaps two weeks ago by a group of scientists and
government officials criticizing the last IPCC report noting that its estimates or rising sea levels are
too low and too conservative and emphasizing what we have heard for some time that rising sea
levels are one of the greatest threats for national security in areas surrounding the United States.
One of the major authors and a spokesman for the paper is John Englander who many of
us have heard from and we are familiar with his very good book, High Tide on Main Street. There
will be another report in 2021/2022 from IPCC and hopefully the scientists on that who
understandably are very conservative will start to recognize that this threat is moving much more
quickly than we expected even a few years ago.
So our job continues to be a very, very important one and one on which we need to keep
pushing other bureaucracies, our own bureaucracy and ourselves. But we are making progress.
I am pleased to announce that Marin County has appointed newly-elected, Supervisor
Stephanie Moulton-Peters to serve on the Commission as Kate Sears’ replacement and she has
joined us here today. I know that she has significant experience with regional activities and we
welcome her to this important, regional body. And Marin County is one of those very significantly
threatened by rising sea level.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20213
I am also pleased to announce that Santa Clara County has appointed newly-elected,
Supervisor Otto Lee to serve on the Commission as Dave Cortese’s replacement, as former
Supervisor Cortese is now a member of the California State Senate.
I now have two requests to make of our Commissioners and Alternates. First, as part of
the state’s Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response Program, the Department of Fish and
Wildlife operates a Harbor Safety Committee. Former Commissioner McGrath volunteered to be
BCDC’s representative on that Committee for many years and now we require a replacement. If
you are interested in participating in how the state prevents and responds to oil spills that occur in
the Bay and would like to take on this important, but not terribly time-consuming assignment,
please let Larry or me know.
Second, I want to thank Commissioner Wagenknecht for volunteering to fill one of the two
vacancies on our Enforcement Committee. Please let me know if any of you would like to fill the
other slot.
We held a Financing the Future Working Group meeting this morning and I would like to
thank those of you who participated.
The primary presentation was on Los Angeles County’s Measure W passed in 2018 which
provided two-cents per square foot tax on impervious pavement averaging about $83 a year per
single, residential units.
This is producing in L.A. County about $300 million a year. It does not have a sunset. And
these are funds going to fund a variety of safety measures regarding rising sea level, regarding
storm water and including further public education and outreach as well as some employment and
training.
It was an inspiration and a number of people in the workshop commented on their success
at $83 compared to our success with Measure AA at $12 per parcel.
It is a potential, important source for the billions and billions of dollars that we are going to
need to successfully address rising sea level around the Bay.
There is a white paper that is coming out of the ART Project and BayAdapt that is being
reviewed now and will be circulated widely this coming spring.
On the morning of our next Commission workshop on February 4th, we will hold an
Education Working Group meeting at 10:30 A.M. I encourage you to participate in that meeting,
as well.
The education effort is the fourth wave of our work to address rising sea level. As we think
about ways to fund things, this – to some extent, becomes the most important wave.
a. Next BCDC Meeting. At our next Commission meeting on February 4th we may:
(1) Hold a possible public hearing and vote on a proposed cease and desist order
regarding unpermitted activity at the East Lagoon of White Slough in Vallejo;
(2) Consider contracts with Bay ports for updating the Seaport Plan; and,
(3) Have a briefing on our Enforcement Program.
(4) In addition, if we are unable to complete today’s agenda we shall begin the
meeting by completing any unfinished business.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20214
b. Ex-Parte Communications. That brings us to the time when if you have had any ex-
parte communications that you have not already posted on the website through the BCDC
portal regarding oral ex-parte communications that you may have received regarding
adjudicatory matters, I invite any Commissioner to report them now pointing out that you still
do need to report them in writing.
Are there any ex-parte communications to report? (No ex-parte communications were
reported) That brings us to the Executive Director’s Report. Larry, it’s all yours.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Goldzband reported: Thank you
very much Chair Wasserman. Thank you very much and on behalf of staff Happy New Year to
each of you and your families and friends.
On this day 59 years ago, it snowed in San Francisco. As we enter 2021, let’s each
remember that just about anything is possible!
a. Budget and Staffing. As seems to be the case every time I talk with you, we are
gaining and losing staff. I am pleased to introduce you to Rowan Yelton who is our newest
permit analyst in the Bay Resources Permit Program. Rowan is reviewing and permitting
projects with impacts to Bay resources including fill projects and habitat restoration projects.
I am also very happy to let you know that Ethan Lavine has returned from his
tremendously important work as a manager in the State’s COVID-19 Contact Tracing Program.
Unfortunately, just as Ethan returns, we are losing Rebecca Coates-Maldoon, whom you first
met a few years ago when she was a member of the planning staff. During the last half of 2020
she led the Shoreline Development Permitting Team in Ethan’s absence. Rebecca has accepted
a position with the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department and will be working to
implement its Countywide Trails Master Plan.
One unfortunate and direct result of this turnover is that we and the Department of
Finance have agreed to postpone the Department’s Mission Based Review of BCDC’s permitting
process. We’ll regroup in early spring after we solidify the permitting team and move forward
then with the Department of Finance. This delay should not affect how Finance views any
recommendations from a budget scheduling perspective.
With regard to BCDC Commissioner turnover, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin, Chair
of ABAG, is in the midst of appointing ABAG representatives to various committees and
governmental organizations, including BCDC. We hope to have the two, empty, ABAG slots
filled with Commissioners and Alternates by the end of the month.
Now for a bit of housekeeping. Each of you was to receive one e-mail from BCDC on
each of the past two Fridays providing you information about this meeting. First, I want to
apologize if you, like I, received two identical e-mails on each day. We are trying to identify
that glitch. Now for the more important information. As most of you know, we send two such
e-mails to provide you with separate pieces of information. For example, staff
recommendations on permit applications may not be completed by the time the first Friday e-
mail is delivered. Therefore, we send the recommendation on the following Friday as required
by BCDC’s regulations. I believe that how we list and describe the information contained in the
second e-mail may be confusing to some of you so we shall ensure that we do a better job of
identifying that information from now on.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20215
b. Policy Issues. One quick thank you regarding BCDC’s BayAdapt program to Nuestra
Casa, BARHII and the Bay Area Regional Collaborative, BARC, our partners in BayAdapt, for
coordinating and funding several community focus groups in East Palo Alto and other locations.
This funding will support community participant stipends as well as facilitation and translation
services by our community-based, organization partners. As we have said before – we need to
work together to adapt to a rising Bay as part of BayAdapt and this is one way we’re trying to
meaningfully engage communities in these regional dialogues.
I have some good news from the enforcement and legal front: After an interminable
period, the State Court of Appeals has scheduled oral arguments for next month in the BCDC
and Regional Water Board cases concerning unauthorized activities at Point Buckler Island. The
judges have 90 days from the date the case is submitted to decide the appeal.
I also want to invite you to a special BCDC meeting in two weeks, on the morning of
February 4th. On that Thursday morning the Education Working Group will hear staff from the
Exploratorium describe a conceptual proposal to fund a rising sea level, public-education
campaign by expending funds that would otherwise be used to remove fill in the Northeast San
Francisco Waterfront as required by its BCDC permit. I urge any of you who are interested in
the issue of how to fund such a public education campaign to attend.
Finally, as you have finished completing your ethics training requirement, each of
you will soon be receiving multiple e-mails from our vendor, South Tech Hosting, reminding you
to file your Form 700 Financial Disclosure information by April 1st. As you know, we don’t like
to publicly shame folks. We’ll be reminding you of that requirement periodically this quarter.
That completes my report Chair Wasserman, and I’m happy to answer any
questions.
Chair Wasserman asked: Does anyone have any questions for the Executive
Director? (No questions were voiced)
7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Chair Wasserman continued: That brings us
to Item 7, Consideration of Administrative Matters. Brad McCrea is here if you have any
questions regarding the Administrative Listing provided on January 15th. Any questions for
Brad? (No questions were voiced)
11. Consideration and Possible Vote Regarding the Proposed Agreement with the City of
Sausalito Regarding Richardson Bay. Chair Wasserman announced: We, as I said in the
beginning, are now going to address Item 11, which is consideration and a possible vote on an
agreement with the City of Sausalito regarding vessels illegally anchored in Richardson Bay.
Enforcement Chair Greg Scharff will provide some introductory comments and then staff will
make the presentation.
Commissioner Scharff addressed the Commission: Thank you Chair Wasserman.
Today I am very pleased to report that the Enforcement Committee is bringing to the
Commission for its consideration an agreement between BCDC and the City of Sausalito that
will end the illegal anchoring out of boats within the City's jurisdiction. This agreement is the
culmination of several years of work that began in earnest in 2017. That is when BCDC began
to work more effectively with the City of Sausalito and the Richardson's Bay Regional Authority,
the RBRA, which includes Marin County and the cities of Belvedere and Mill Valley and the
Town of Tiburon.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20216
During the previous four years the number of illegally anchored vessels in Richardson's
Bay increased significantly and that influx has long been recognized as very detrimental to the
Bay’s habitat and has jeopardized the health and safety of those individuals living on illegally
and often on unseaworthy vessels. In fact, in the windstorm a few days ago, 16 vessels went
adrift and one sank, taking the life of a dog.
Simply put, the Special Area Plan adopted by BCDC and the RBRA in 1984 was not
seriously enforced either by the local jurisdictions or by BCDC in the past. Unfortunately, the
impacts to the natural resources of the Bay and the ecosystem in general have been very
detrimental and have been compounded over time making it imperative that we take action
now.
So why is it illegal for people to live on these boats? Richardson Bay is protected by the
public trust, which means that the resource itself, the Bay, must be held in trust for the general
public, not for private individuals; and state law does not allow the Bay used for residential
purposes due to the environmental damage that living on the Bay causes. While some
recreational boats may be used for residential purposes, deemed liveaboards, in our
regulations they must be located in marina berth slips, and in accordance with state law and
local ordinances, not simply anchored wherever on the Bay.
Since 2017, BCDC staff and the Enforcement Committee have taken both a more
vigorous and measured approach to get the local governments into compliance with the
Richardson Bay Special Area Plan. The City of Sausalito left the RBRA to pursue its own
enforcement program in 2017 and since then the City has both stemmed the influx of vessels
and has continued to provide services to the anchor-outs that remain in Sausalito waters. That
includes offering land-based housing to those individuals now living illegally on the water.
In 2017 there were reportedly about 70 vessels in Sausalito waters. Today that number
of vessels, I am happy to report, has been reduced to nine. In addition, Sausalito has initiated
efforts to reduce impacts that subtidal habitat through its work at Dunphy Park, and this
agreement will ensure that the City takes practical steps to restore subtidal, eelgrass habitat
supported by the best-available science. Concurrent with this progress the City continues to
ensure that its land-based locations for anchor-outs to come ashore and secure what they need
are still available.
Unfortunately, there are still well over 100 vessels illegally anchored in Richardson Bay
outside of Sausalito’s jurisdiction. Therefore, as part of this agreement, the City has committed
to continue to be involved in the broader Richardson Bay enforcement issues being addressed
by the RBRA because any resolution of these larger issues needs to include the city of Sausalito.
The Enforcement Committee looks forward to bringing to the Commission a voluntary
agreement with the RBRA to rid the county waters of illegally-anchored vessels this year.
And just as important, I want to stress that this agreement specifies that BCDC expects
that the City will comply with the Marin County Public Health Order relating to COVID-19 and
ensure that no enforcement action places any individual in a more adverse position vis-à-vis the
risk of coronavirus transmission. The deadlines may be extended as necessary to ensure
compliance with any public health orders.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20217
With that brief overview I will now hand over the presentation to Priscilla, the
Enforcement Policy Manager, who will then introduce Adrienne Klein, who has worked
diligently on resolving this matter for the last several years. Thank you.
Enforcement Policy Manager, Priscilla Njuguna spoke: Thank you, Commissioner
Scharff. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman, Vice Chair Chappell, Commissioners. I am Priscilla
Njuguna, the Enforcement Policy Manager. Momentarily you will hear from Adrienne Klein
who has been working with the City of Sausalito over the past four years or so, to come to the
resolution that you will hear discussed today.
Ms. Klein will provide some background on the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan, the
purpose of which was to provide uniform policies and standards to be used by the local
governments, including the City of Sausalito, to manage the future use and ensure the
protection of Richardson Bay's natural resources. Other goals of the Plan that the local
governments and BCDC came to seek to achieve include water- quality, protection measures
assuring the use of the water for water-oriented uses, restoration and enhancement of
degraded tidal wetlands and provision of public access to and along its shoreline.
Adrienne will now provide you with an overview of Sausalito’s agreement and the
Enforcement Committee's recommendation that the Commission authorize the Executive
Director to sign the agreement which was included in the packet for this meeting supplied to
the Commissioners. Adrienne, you have the floor.
Chief of Enforcement Adrienne Klein presented the following: Thank you, Chair Scharff
and Priscilla. Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman and Members of the Commission. As Chair
Scharff noted, this is a complex and controversial matter that has been ongoing for years. The
agreement we are discussing today represents the outcome of dedicated effort of the City and
will inform the ongoing and equally dedicated efforts of the Richardson's Bay Regional Agency,
the joint powers agency that includes Marin County and the other local governments in the
area.
You have each received a memorandum describing the matter and the Enforcement
Committee's recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to sign the proposed
agreement between BCDC and the City of Sausalito which the City has already signed. The
Committee's memo provides background on the matter, background on the agreement and a
summary of the agreement. You also received a link to the agreement. This presentation will
provide you with context and further background on the agreement and describe its outcomes.
Regarding Richardson Bay. As a preliminary matter it is important to note that the lands
of Richardson's Bay are subject to the public trust. Private residential uses are not authorized
public trust uses and are not generally allowed on the waters and lands held in trust for the
people of the state.
Equally important, as stated in the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan, which I will also
refer to as the SAP, Richardson's Bay is a unique and irreplaceable resource to the people of
Marin County and the Bay Area. The SAP, which is the result of a joint effort between BCDC,
Marin County and the local governments with jurisdiction over Richardson Bay, requires that
vessels and floating structures used for residential purposes, i.e., houseboats and live-aboard
vessels, should be allowed only in recreational or houseboat marinas when consistent with and
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20218
in compliance with local codes. The SAP, which was finalized in April 1984, further states that
all anchor-outs should be removed from Richardson Bay. It is within this policy context that the
Richardson’s Bay enforcement matter is being discussed today.
After BCDC and the local jurisdictions finalized the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan, as
noted, the Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency or RBRA was formed as part of a joint powers
agreement through which the local governments agreed to collaborate to bring Richardson Bay
into compliance with state law.
The number of anchor-out vessels in Richardson Bay has fluctuated over the decades.
However, in recent years the number of vessels had substantially increased from around 120 to
more than 250 at its peak. Due to the active management of Richardson Bay in the past three
years there are now nine vessels on City waters and 105 vessels on County waters and this is
great progress.
In 2017, the City of Sausalito left the RBRA, electing to use its share of its RBRA
contributions to resolve issues in its waters exclusively, resulting in two parallel efforts to
manage Richardson's Bay. BCDC staff has been working with both the RBRA and the City to
facilitate actions to bring the City and County waters into compliance with the Special Area
Plan. While we are discussing the City action since 2017 today, staff is in discussions with the
RBRA and hopes to bring another resolution forward to the Enforcement Committee for its
consideration this year.
Since 2017, the City has developed local ordinances to address the allowable time
periods for mooring in City waters and allow the City to remove vessels that moored in its
waters for more than 72 hours. The City also implemented several programs for anchor-outs,
an annual trash cleanup day, a mobile shower program and commenced discussions with local
harbormasters to find marina berth slips for anchor-outs to be used on an interim basis to
reduce the number of vessels on the water, reduce habitat impacts, increase personal safety
and facilitate procurement of permanent housing. The City calls this initiative its Safe Harbor
Program.
So, regarding some background on the agreement development. BCDC has always
sought to ensure that the resolution of the compliance issues on Richardson Bay is led locally
because the local governments are most familiar with the regulatory and resource challenges
and are best placed to address these challenges.
It is in keeping with the local government-driven approach that the commitments we
will discuss today have been negotiated with the City of Sausalito officials and their staff.
It is important to note that while these proposed commitments address Sausalito’s
commitments to make City waters compliant with state law and address the damage that has
been done to subtidal habitat, some of the details as to how this is done will be developed
later. The City will submit plans to BCDC. In the event that some of the measures that the City
proposes in these plans require permits or other actions by BCDC we will address them at the
appropriate time.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 20219
The agreement outcomes. The City has committed that in five years its waters will be
free of anchor-out vessels. As such, vessels used for residential purposes defined as
liveaboards by BCDC law, will be located only in recreational marinas as allowed by the
recreation policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan.
The activities on and uses of City waters will be public trust-consistent and the City has
committed to measures to prevent future adverse impacts to the Bay’s resources. Mitigation
for the current impacts to subtidal, eelgrass habitat caused by vessel ground tackle will be
underway though not complete within five years, given monitoring that will take an additional
five years.
The next six slides will provide further detail on the City's specific commitments.
Regarding the management of vessel influx, Sausalito has an ordinance that prohibits
any person from mooring a vessel in City waters in excess of 10 hours without written
permission from the Chief of Police. The City ordinances also allow the City to remove any
vessel that has remained in City waters without authorization for more than 72 hours.
Sausalito is committing to enforce these ordinances going forward.
The City is also committing to regular patrols of City waters and will promptly advise any
vessels observed by law enforcement of the limitations on anchoring in City waters.
In addition, the City is committed to inform BCDC of any vessels that it permits to stay in
City waters for more than 30 days. The City states that a request to exceed a 30-day stay is a
rare occurrence. Nevertheless, BCDC wants to ensure that new vessels do not arrive and
remain in City waters and thus these commitments and reporting requirements are important
to ensure that there is no new influx of unlawfully-anchored vessels without prompt
notification to BCDC.
Regarding the removal of existing vessels, the City has committed to remove the nine
unlawfully-anchored vessels by the end of 2025. The three vessels that arrived after January
2018 will be removed first. Thereafter, the vessels that arrived before January 2018, which are
considered legacy vessels, will be transitioned off of Richardson Bay before 2025.
The agreement also makes it clear that BCDC expects that the City will comply with the
Marin County Public Health Order relating to COVID-19 and ensure that no enforcement action
places any individual at greater risk of coronavirus infection. Agreement provision deadlines
adversely impacted by public health orders may be extended as necessary to ensure
compliance with said public health orders.
Sausalito has committed to continue to cooperate in regional and state level discussions
and actions to address the broader issues in Richardson Bay. These efforts include existing
discussions that are being led by State Senator Mike McGuire to identify various initiatives that
could facilitate the creation of housing alternatives for anchor-outs in Marin County.
An issue that was very important to BCDC is that Sausalito not take any actions that
would make it more difficult to resolve the broader issue, which is an effort to remove
unlawfully moored vessels from Richardson’s Bay. We understand that the City lands are
where the anchor-outs throughout Richardson Bay go for their daily resources and supplies.
For this reason, however, while Sausalito has noted that there is a disproportionate reliance on
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202110
resources within the City, it is important that the City continue to be part of the regional
solution that includes support from Marin County and other local governments. And the City
has agreed to do this.
Regarding subtidal habitat, as noted in prior presentations to the Enforcement
Committee and the Commission, San Francisco Bay is one of the estuaries in California that
supports eelgrass habitat, an important natural resource in California.
In June of last year, Dr. Katharyn Boyer, a professor of biology at San Francisco State
University's Estuary and Ocean Science Center whose work is focused on studying subtidal,
eelgrass habitat, gave a brief general overview on the process undertaken to restore eelgrass,
to the Enforcement Committee. She described research performed by other scientists that
found that San Francisco Bay supports approximately 2400 acres of eelgrass beds and that
Richardson Bay supports between 300 and 650 of these acres, which is 12-26 percent of San
Francisco Bay’s eelgrass beds. Dr. Boyer informed the Committee that vessels and their ground
tackle have caused approximately 50 to 85 acres of damage to the Richardson's Bay eelgrass
beds. In describing eelgrass, Dr. Boyer noted that among its other benefits, by stabilizing
sediment, eelgrass provides the foundation for a unique and valuable food web in San Francisco
Bay where Pacific herring spawn and many species of water birds forage.
A number of human-related activities, including illegally-anchored boats along
Sausalito’s shoreline, have been shown to pose a threat to eelgrass.
It was important to BCDC that Sausalito’s staff commit to mitigation for the eelgrass
damage that has occurred in City waters as a result of unlawfully-anchored vessels.
San Francisco Bay has been the site of a number of eelgrass restoration efforts, some of
which have been undertaken by Dr. Boyer and her colleagues at San Francisco State.
Preliminary results indicate that eelgrass restoration enhancement is possible and doing
so can increase species richness and abundance, although we recognize, there are still some
unknowns about fully maintaining restored eelgrass.
In the agreement, Sausalito has committed to restore, create or enhance eelgrass
habitat to mitigate for damage from vessels unlawfully anchored in City waters. The City will
provide a survey of damage to BCDC no later than August 31st of this year.
This survey will be based on the data assembled by the consulting firm Merkel and
Associates along with Audubon California and others working on this issue. To the extent that
the Merkel and Associates data does not provide a complete assessment of damage, Sausalito
will undertake the necessary work to fill in any gaps.
After completing the analysis of damage to subtidal habitat the City will work with
BCDC, the RBRA, the National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife, CDFW, and other state and local agencies to develop a plan for mitigation of
subtidal, eelgrass, habitat damage in City waters. That will be submitted to BCDC no later than
June 30, 2022.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202111
The plan will include a goal to achieve compensatory mitigation at a ratio of no less than
1.2 mitigation acres to 1 impact acres, which is consistent with the recommendations published
by NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region in October 2014. This ratio assumes that restored
eelgrass habitat achieves habitat function comparable to existing eelgrass habitat within a
period of three years or less.
The agreement also includes a provision that the City will prepare and submit to BCDC a
list of measures that will be undertaken to avoid and/or minimize further damage to eelgrass
habitat from vessels anchored in City waters.
These measures will be developed in accordance with state and federal policies and will
be implemented in accordance with a plan that will be submitted to BCDC for approval no later
than August 31st of this year.
The City has agreed to monitor and adaptively manage eelgrass restoration activities for
at least 10 years from the date the restoration and mitigation efforts are implemented.
Regarding coordinated waterfront management efforts, as noted earlier, Sausalito is
participating in a number of valuable Marin County efforts to improve the quality of life for
anchor-outs and improve the environmental conditions on Richardson's Bay. These include the
Mobile Showers Program, which allows for additional community outreach and distribution of
food and other resources. It also includes the annual debris box collections and the Safe Harbor
Program. Sausalito will commit to continue this work.
The City agrees to provide ongoing updates on the status of achieving its commitments
under this agreement to staff on a monthly basis, to the Enforcement Committee three times a
year, and to the Commission once a year.
At this point I will allow Chair Scharff to provide any concluding remarks to explain the
Enforcement Committee's recommendation that the Executive Director be authorized to
execute this agreement. Staff believes, and the Committee concurred, that this agreement
addresses the mutual interests of BCDC and the City to protect and preserve the subtidal
habitat in City waters and to manage these areas in a Richardson’s Bay Special Area Plan
consistent manner. Representatives from the City of Sausalito, as mentioned, as well as staff,
are available to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. This concludes my
presentation. Thank you.
Commissioner Scharff addressed the Commission: Thank you for that, Adrienne, I think
you summarized it really well. I really just wanted to thank you and the other staff who worked
on this; I know it's been a long-term, focused effort and you have all done a really great job.
And I also really wanted to thank the City of Sausalito for partnering with us on this and coming
to a good solution for everyone involved. Thanks.
Chair Wasserman continued: Thank you both very much.
With that presentation I now invite anyone from the public who would like to make a
comment, please raise your hand to speak. You will be called in the order hands are raised and
given three minutes to speak.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202112
Mr. James Haussener commented: Good afternoon, Chairman and Members of the
Commission, James Haussener of Castro Valley. I am a recreational sailor of over 50 years
starting in Palo Alto. In looking at my logbook, I went sailing out of Sausalito 18 times during
the last year, 2020.
The 10-hour of anchor rule came as a surprise to me. Your previous presentations and
including the one back in July it talked about a 72-hour anchor rule. As a sailor, as a sailing
instructor, 10 hours – say - during the wintertime to anchor, is way too short for folks who have
a limit as to when they can sail if you can only sail during daylight hours and that sort of stuff.
Richardson Bay is a popular spot for anchoring. It is a place that instructors will take
students out to, to anchor overnight for their first time of trying it. I am concerned that that
this will become some sort of precedent for the area, including Richardson Bay. It is not the
same as what we have at Clipper Cove that is run by the San Francisco Treasure Island
Development Authority. They have a 24-hour limit that you can anchor without having to get a
permit or calling in. And so what we are now creating is a Byzantine rule of regulations in San
Francisco Bay that maybe has an impact on the safety of recreational boaters.
The other question I have and I just want to make sure that this is for the City limits of
the City of Sausalito and not within the City’s sphere of influence for the City of Sausalito
because those are two separate limit lines. And as there is no map attached either in this
presentation, in the agreement or in your staff report it could leave one with a little bit of a
question mark as to what that is.
So, I appreciate the time to make my comments to you and I appreciate all of the efforts
the staff has made in responding to my various emailed questions over the past year about this.
Thank you.
Chair Wasserman continued: With that we will entertain Commission questions and
comments. Do any Commissioners wish to comment or question or jump up and down?
Commissioner Wagenknecht was recognized: We had a question about the 10 hours
and that being inconsistent. Do we have an answer for that?
Regulatory Director McCrea responded: I don't know if Adrienne or Priscilla has an
answer or if there is somebody from Sausalito, perhaps Curtis. I see he is an attendee.
Ms. Joan Cox spoke: This is Joan Cox. I can answer on behalf of the city of Sausalito if
that is helpful. We do have a 10-hour anchoring rule. However, it is accompanied by a 72-hour
enforcement rule. So although we do have a 10- hour anchor rule, we don't actually undertake
enforcement efforts until someone has been in our waters for 72 hours.
We are in the practice of reaching all of our visitors to welcome them and apprise them
of Sausalito’s rules so that they are aware of what they can and cannot do and what services we
can provide. We have our Chief Rohrabacher on the line as well if further details would be
helpful.
Commissioner Wagenknecht replied: You have answered it for me. Thank you.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202113
Commissioner Nelson chimed in: I was actually going to raise exactly the same issue. I
know that Richardson Bay is a popular place when boaters feel they need a safe place to anchor
overnight, sometimes unexpectedly. And I do think, as Mr. Haussener mentioned, there would
be real value to trying to find consistency.
So for Miss Cox and for staff I'm just wondering, a broader question than just this
agreement. But should we be trying to make sure that there is a consistent set of rules to the
extent possible for anchoring in protected locations around the Bay, just so boaters have a
chance of complying? It is a complicated system. Thanks.
Ms. Njuguna responded: Yes, if I might answer that, Chair Wasserman. So the
Richardson Bay Special Area Plan was created just for that, to make sure that there are uniform
standards so that people within Richardson Bay would know what to expect and so there is a
level of consistency based on the Richardson Bay Special Area Plan.
Commissioner Nelson continued: Do you know if that's true if the same sort of
requirements apply at other protected locations? Jim mentioned Clipper Cove, the back side of
Angel Island, a couple of obvious examples.
Mr. McCrea asked: Adrienne, can you answer that?
Ms. Klein explained: Each jurisdiction establishes its own rules so they are not
necessarily consistent and I am not aware that the BCDC Bay Plan would provide to establish
something region-wide.
Commissioner Nelson acknowledged: Okay, thank you.
Chair Wasserman continued: There was the related question as to whether the
agreement governs only Sausalito’s literal jurisdiction or affects its sphere of influence?
Ms. Cox replied: So to the City of Sausalito’s understanding it covers Sausalito’s
jurisdiction. I will say that both with respect to the regulations in Sausalito and Richardson's
Bay as well as the sphere of influence question, Sausalito works closely and has ever since its
withdrawal from the Richardson's Bay Regional Agency, Sausalito works closely with RBRA to
ensure that our regulations are consistent and that we collaborate with one another in our
enforcement efforts. Although they are separate, we do not operate as though we are in a
vacuum, we operate collaboratively with our regional partners.
Chair Wasserman asked: And is the rule the same in RBRA?
Ms. Cox answered: I know that when Sausalito adopted its rules we looked at RBRA’s
rules. RBRA then updated their rules after Sausalito updated its rules. So I will let Curtis Havel
respond as to RBRA’s rules.
Commissioner Eisen was recognized: Thank you. I have a question for staff about the
eelgrass mitigation provisions of this agreement. I was trying to learn myself about eelgrass a
little bit and how important it is and I read that California has something called the Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines. I don't know if that's still in effect or if that's
something that we reviewed in connection with designing these mitigation provisions. Do you
know anything about that, Adrienne?
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202114
Ms. Klein answered: Thank you, Commissioner Eisen. I believe that is the CEMP, which
we refer to, and I believe that is the current resource that scientists and policymakers are
referring to in doing plantings and considering restoration.
As we mentioned in the presentation, the details of the restoration plans are not
finalized, they are being developed. And maybe as a teaser, the RBRA has employed someone
who is working on their behalf to develop an eelgrass restoration plan and the City and the
RBRA are working together on that initiative. Does that answer your question?
Commissioner Eisen replied: Yes, it does, thank you.
Commissioner Eckerle commented: Thank you. I just wanted to respond to
Commissioner Eisen’s question just as it is relevant for some work that the Ocean Protection
Council just did. The National Marine Fisheries Service is actually in the process of reevaluating
the CEMP as part of its five- year review. And I can circulate this around; but the Ocean
Protection Council adopted a resolution with some recommendations on how that CEMP could
be strengthened, and so that is something that is underway and they will be reevaluating,
hopefully that ratio for restoration for eelgrass habitat.
Chair Wasserman acknowledged: Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from Commissioners?
Seeing none we will ask Adrienne to present the Staff Recommendation.
Ms. Klein presented the following: Through the Enforcement Committee, its
recommendation is that the Executive Director be authorized to execute this agreement.
Chair Wasserman continued: I would now entertain a motion to move and second the
Staff Recommendation.
MOTION: Commissioner Randolph moved approval of the Staff Recommendation,
seconded by Commissioner Scharff.
VOTE: The motion carried with a vote of 22-0-0 with Commissioners: Addiego, Ahn,
Butt, Eckerle, Eisen, Gioia, Gorin, Gunther, Peskin, Pine, Randolph, Moulton-Peters, Showalter,
Wagenknecht, Gilmore, Scharff, Pemberton, Nelson, Vasquez, Hillmer, Vice Chair Chappell and
Chair Wasserman voting, “YES”, no “NO” votes, and no “ABSTAIN” votes.
Chair Wasserman announced: The motion passes.
Executive Director Goldzband interjected: Chair Wasserman, could I say one thing really
quickly, please?
Chair Wasserman replied: You may.
Executive Director Goldzband spoke: On behalf of staff, I really wanted to thank Priscilla
and Karen and Adrienne and the Enforcement Team for working so diligently during the past
couple of years to get this done, with the cooperation of Joan Cox and Adam Politzer, the
former City Manager of Sausalito. We could not have done it as well as we did it without
tremendous cooperation from them. We look forward to providing Priscilla and her team with
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202115
even more work this year as they deal with the other part of this complex process, which is the
RBRA, and we look forward to hopefully getting that kind of cooperation and that voluntary
agreement to you before year’s end. So thank you very much. And thank you, of course, to the
Enforcement Committee, because they really did yeoman's work on this.
Chair Wasserman added: Congratulations to all, good effort. Now, of course, the real
work begins but that is always the case with these kinds of settlements.
8. Public Hearing and Possible Vote on the Heron’s Head Shoreline Resilience Project by
Port of San Francisco in India Basin in the City and County of San Francisco; BCDC Permit
Application No. M1998.003.05. Chair Wasserman stated: That brings us to Item 8, a public
hearing and a possible vote on the Heron’s Head Shoreline Resilience Project along the San
Francisco Waterfront. Anniken Lydon of our staff will introduce the project.
Mr. McCrea spoke: Before Anniken jumps in I am going to remind everyone that I think a
number of us have our eye on the clock here because we have three projects back to back here
that we are going to try and do in the next two and a half hours here; so we have a beach project,
a park project and a redevelopment project. We have asked all of the presenters to keep their
presentations as concise as possible. We have asked our staff to do the same. And we are going
to rely on your questions if you need more additional information so that we can get through
today's agenda. So thanks and back to you, Anniken.
Senior Environmental Scientist Lydon presented the following: Thanks, Brad. Give me a
second to share my screen.
Good afternoon, Chair Wasserman and Commissioners. I will be presenting to you a
presentation for the Heron’s Head Park Shoreline Resilience Project that is being conducted by the
Port of San Francisco.
This project received Measure AA funding and is the third BRRIT project to come before
the Commission. I will present a brief introduction to the project and some of the issues raised
and then I will turn the presentation over to Carol Bach from the Port of San Francisco to provide
additional details about the project.
A little on process before we begin. I would like to mention that this application is for a
material amendment to an administrative permit and as such the Staff Recommendation that will
be discussed after the public hearing contains both underlines and strikethroughs that show
content that would be added and deleted as part of the permit.
On January 8, 2021 you were mailed a staff summary of the application for the
construction of a beach and habitat enhancements in front of the existing tidal marsh at the
Heron’s Head Park, which is an approximately 25-acre park constructed on fill that was placed in
the Bay.
The proposed project site shown by the yellow outline on the map is located along the
southern waterfront of San Francisco in India Basin just south of Pier 92 and is within the City and
County of San Francisco. The site is also located within an area that the San Francisco Waterfront
Special Area Plan designated for public recreation, open space, public access and marina uses.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202116
The application before you today, as I mentioned, is for the construction of a beach along
approximately 1,600 linear feet of the southern shoreline of Heron’s Head Park to protect the tidal
marsh from a current erosion issue. The beach is generally shown in this gray area and the Port
will discuss more of the project details during their presentation.
The project also includes the placement of oyster reef balls on the mudflats and woody
debris on the beach berm to enhance habitat opportunities present on the site. The project
includes public-access improvements to the signage and educational elements along the site and
seating areas along the main public access path.
The entire project is located on Bay fill that was placed during the initial construction of the
Pier 98 Marine Terminal in the 1970s, which was never completed. As such, the entire 25-acre
peninsula is located in the Commission's Bay jurisdiction which is depicted ending at about
Jennings Street. So the entire peninsula is within the Commission's Bay jurisdiction.
The project will permanently impact approximately 2.82 acres of tidal marsh, which is
depicted on this figure in green, and tidal mudflats and subtidal habitats shown in this figure in the
blue areas. And, it will convert these particular habitat areas to coarse beach, oyster reef and rock
habitats, and those are shown by the black hatching along the southern shoreline. The project will
also impact approximately 0.79 acres of upland, public-access areas.
To set a little more context for the area where this project will occur I have added a map
showing the Commission's Community Vulnerability, Mapping Tool characterization of the project
site and the adjacent area. The census block where the project is located, there's Heron’s Head,
within this census block, is ranked by this Community Vulnerability Mapping Tool as having high
social vulnerability and is within the highest, contamination, vulnerability category.
The key indicators for social vulnerability in this area are listed here on the slide and they
indicate that the adjacent community has a significant number of members that are renters, a
single-parent home, a person of color, or have very low income.
The Heron’s Head Park currently provides an open-space area with natural Bay habitats
that are accessible to the community and visitors to the site.
The proposed project would minimize the erosion of the marsh edge and protect this
community asset and improve habitats and public access to the site in the future.
The Applicant will discuss community outreach about the project during their presentation.
The relevant Bay Plan policies for Commission consideration when evaluating the permit
application include the policy sections related to fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife, tidal
marshes and tidal flats, subtidal areas, water quality, public access, climate change, shoreline
protection and safety of fills.
And the primary issues raised are whether the project is consistent with the McAteer-
Petris Act allowances for fill and the relevant Bay Plan policies including appropriate protections
for natural resources of the Bay and providing maximum, feasible, public access consistent with
the project.
And with that, that concludes the staff presentation and here to present the details of the
project is Carol Bach from the Port of San Francisco.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202117
Ms. Carol Bach addressed the Commission: Good afternoon, Commissioners. I am Carol
Bach representing the Port of San Francisco. I am the Environmental Affairs Manager. Thank you,
Anniken, for that great introduction. It is actually going to help me be brief in describing the
Heron’s Head Park Shoreline Resilience Project.
Anniken spoke a little bit about the history of Heron’s Head Park. BCDC did authorize the
Port in 1970 to begin placing fill in the Bay for the purpose of constructing a marine terminal,
which was to be our Pier 98, just south of Pier 94. You can see in the picture on the left the
outline. There was a fence placed in the Bay to outline the perimeter of the future Pier 98 which is
barely visible in that picture. The fill that was placed consisted primarily of rock, soil and dredged
material. In 1977 the Port ceased placing fill. Over the following 20 years the land remained
fenced off to prevent public access and tidal wetlands developed along the southern shoreline
naturally.
In the mid-1990s the Port and BCDC settled a dispute over the fate of the fill that the Port
had placed and BCDC issued a permit for the Port to expand and enhance the wetlands and
construct a park on the upland portion of the site.
Heron’s Head Park opened to the public in 1999. The EcoCenter at Heron’s Head Park
opened in 2010.
The parking area was reconfigured to expand Park and recreational amenities in 2012. And
today, Heron’s Head Park supports a diversity of park visitors, activities and wildlife.
Heron’s Head Park provides habitat for more than 100 species of birds including both
residents and migrants along the Pacific Flyway. It includes habitat for two endangered species,
California Seablite which was extirpated from San Francisco Bay in the 1960s and is now found
only in Morro Bay and in a few locations where it has been reintroduced into San Francisco Bay.
It is also a home to the endangered Ridgway’s rail, formerly the California clapper rail,
which has been spotted at Heron’s Head Park intermittently over the years but has not bred there,
that successfully nested there for over 10 years. There is a part-time resident Great Blue Heron,
probably not the same one over all these years, that is often seen hanging out on the outboard
edges of the tidal ponds.
Over the 22 years since the Port completed the Wetland Enhancement Project at Heron’s
Head, shoreline erosion, caused primarily by wind-driven waves, has caused the shoreline to
retreat up to 50 feet in some locations and has reduced the tidal marsh area by approximately two
acres.
One of the tidal ponds, which provide valuable foraging and roosting habitat, is completely
breached and currently functions as a tidal embayment. The other tidal ponds are at risk of
following suit.
This slide illustrates the progression of the shoreline retreat and the black dotted line being
the projected shoreline at 2050 if erosion is not mitigated.
The Port identified the severity of the shoreline erosion and began planning this Shoreline
Resilience Project in 2017.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 202118
Since then we have presented the project beginning with early conceptual design through
current plans for construction to various community groups, including the Port's Southern
Waterfront Advisory Committee, the EcoCenter Advisory Committee, Bayview Residents
Improving Their Environment, and the Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Consistent with Port and BCDC policies that recognize the importance of engaging rather
than simply informing the public about projects that affect their communities, the Heron’s Head
Park Shoreline Resilience Project includes hiring local youth to plan, develop, and deliver their own
presentations, and community engagement programs related to the Shoreline Resilience Project.
The proposed Heron’s Head Park Shoreline Resilience Project is designed to achieve three
primary objectives: control erosion, improve habitat, and create capacity for sea level rise
adaptation.
The project includes placing approximately 12,000 cubic yards of coarse sand and gravel
beach material along 1,600 linear feet of the shoreline and that is the gray area shown here. Five
rock and cobble groins will be placed perpendicular to the shoreline to control longshore transport
of the beach material. There are two larger ones located at the portion of the shoreline that is
most exposed to erosive forces. These groins will be constructed of larger riprap-sized rock with
T-shaped headlands at the outboard end. The other three groins will be lower elevation and those
are indicated here and here and here. Lower elevation smaller width sills with rock on the wave-
facing southeast side of the groin and cobble on the lee side or the backside of the groin. Both
types of groins will be mostly buried by gravel but will be visible at the offshore end when beach
construction is complete.
These little dots here at the ends of the T-shaped headlands and elsewhere along the
shoreline show where up to 60 oyster-reef balls will be placed. These will be fabricated out of
concrete, oyster shells, wood and fiber in a design that has been used successfully in other living
shorelines recently constructed in San Francisco Bay. The reef balls will be placed in the shallow,
subtidal water off the ends of the two headland structures and elsewhere along the shoreline to
provide habitat for oysters and other invertebrates and clean substrate for herring larvae.
Along the inland edge of the constructed beach, this darker gray or black band, existing soil
will be placed on the beach crest and planted with native plants to stabilize the soil and provide
foraging and refugia habitat. Beach construction will also include installation of natural woody
debris to create trellises for the California seablite to climb on and provide additional high-tide
refuge for wildlife.
This figure also shows a couple areas where materials and equipment will be staged and
beach material will be unloaded as well as the construction, access routes shown here. And those
routes and staging areas were selected in areas where the vegetation is least vulnerable. So, we
chose those areas to minimize the impacts to existing habitat.
There are seasonal restrictions on construction at this site to prevent impacts to aquatic
species and nesting birds so consequently our construction period is limited to August through
January.
Public access to the primary pedestrian path that runs the length of the peninsula will be
impacted during that four-month, construction period. However, alternative access to the
EcoCenter will be provided during the construction period.
BCDC MINUTES
JANUARY 21, 2021You can also read
