Aerial view of McLaughlin Eastshore Regional Park. Albany Bulb is second projection from the lower right.

On May 6 the Albany City Council voted unanimously to begin a program to remove campers from the Albany Bulb, the peninsula of former landfill jutting into the Bay from the city’s shoreline. This will be an important step towards completing the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park

In 1985 the Bulb became the first area to be placed into the park, when the city agreed to lease it to the state for 66 years, but money never became available for a key condition of that agreement: the land has to prepared to be parkland, in particular by removing rebar and other dangerous materials. The state park’s General Plan designates the Bulb as a conservation area for birds, with trail access and passive recreation.

In the 1990s people started camping illegally on the Bulb, and in 1999 the city and Park District removed that camper population, but the land was again left unprotected, and in the mid-2000s campers returned. There is now a camping population of around 60, some of whom have constructed makeshift housing, with cages and fencing for pets. Many recreationists have begun avoiding the park because of the human waste they find there and the danger from uncontrolled dogs. There are reports of uncontrolled dogs attacking hikers.

The city plans to try to provide counseling, social services, and housing to the campers, with the goal of enforcing the no-camping ordinance by October. By that time, though, agreements need to be completed for the Bulb to be taken over by the state or the East Bay Regional Park District so that a plan can be completed for it. The relevant agencies need to work together to remediate the problems on the Bulb, enforce appropriate park rules, and implement a plan for the Bulb consistent with the overall Eastshore Park General Plan.

The Sierra Club, along with Citizens for East Shore Parks, is working with the agencies towards this goal.

WhatYouCanDo

Write to the Albany City Council at:

1000 San Pablo Ave.
Albany, CA 94706.

Thank the councilmembers for their vote.

If you want to work with the Club on these issues, contact Norman La Force, chair of the Chapter’s East Bay Public Lands Committee, at (510)526-4362 or n.laforce@comcast.net.

Norman La Force, chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

San Francisco has been barreling ahead on the Golden Gate Warriors’ proposal for an event center and multi-use development at Piers 30 – 32 (see April-May Yodeler, page 7). In October the city issued “Findings of Fiscal Responsibility and Feasibility” prepared by Economic and Planning Systems. This report was accepted by the Board of Supervisors. At the request of the city, Assemblymember Phil Ting has introduced AB 1273 which would declare a multi-use development to conform to the Public Trust, even though his district does not include the proposed project.

On May 1, AB 1273 passed out of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee on a 7 – 2 vote (Nancy Skinner and Mark Stone voting no) despite the opposition of Save the Bay, San Francisco Baykeeper, the San Francisco Waterfront Alliance, Sierra Club California, and the mayors of four East Bay cities (Tom Bates of Berkeley, Stephen Cassidy of San Leandro, Gayle McLaughlin of Richmond, and Jean Quan of Oakland). As the mayors’ letter stated, AB 1273 would diminish the authority of the State Lands Commission and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) in the project approval process. The bill moved to Local Government, where it passed unanimously. Next it goes to Assembly Appropriations.

This project has moved so quickly that the San Francisco Planning Department issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft Environmental Impact Report before the Planning Department had received project designs and building models. The Citizens’ Advisory Committee and its subcommittees have had to cancel meetings for lack of project information. Upcoming hearings before the San Francisco Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors Land Use Committee, and BCDC will require the plans.

BCDC is clearly prepared to do its important job here. Its comments responding to the NOP were detailed, quoting the McAteer-Petris Act and the criteria of the Port’s Special Area Plan (SAP) for allowable development: “The SAP (p. 20) characterizes the Northeastern Waterfront which includes Piers 30 – 32, as a ‘regional recreation and scenic resource.’ Generally, the SAP provides that waterfront development should provide maximum feasible public access—of which visual access is a ‘critical part’ (p. 32), preserve important Bay views and have a low scale height and bulk.”

Also threatening open spaces on the waterfront is the Port’s proposal to turn the plaza behind the Ferry Building into a parking lot. The Waterfront Land Use Plan designates this plaza as open space. Parking over water is prohibited by the Waterfront Land Use Plan, San Francisco’s General Plan, and the BCDC Special Area Plan. The plaza is over water, as is the Ferry Building itself.

WhatYouCanDo

To be alerted when it is time to speak up against this and other outrageous waterfront proposals, make sure that you are signed up to receive the Sierra Club Bay Chapter’s updates and alerts.

Or to get involved now, please contact conservation organizer Jess Dervin-Ackerman at (510)848-0800, ext. 304, or jess@sfbaysc.org.

Becky Evans, chair, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

California’s Public Trust doctrine has long been a key tool for protecting San Francisco’s shoreline. The doctrine reserves the shoreline for maritime uses, water-related activities, public access, and environmental protections (see “The best things in life deserve legal protection: the shoreline and the Public Trust” from September-October 2005, page 6). The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the State Lands Commission (SLC) were created largely to protect this public interest. In 1969 the Burton Act gave the Port of San Francisco jurisdiction over previously state-controlled tidal lands, specifically on the condition that they be administered in conformity with the Public Trust. AB 1273, however, introduced by Assemblymember Phil Ting to help ease the Warriors’ proposed project through the regulatory hoops, represents (among other mischief) a serious attack on the Public Trust doctrine, with potential consequences extending well beyond its stated purposes (see “Is SF getting ahead of itself on Warriors’ proposal?”).

When the mayor’s office and the Port endorsed conceptual plans for the Warriors’ proposal, they realized that it was not particularly waterfront-related, and was potentially in conflict with BCDC guidelines—which allow only projects with a waterfront-related and trust-compliant primary use. The Port and city then had two options. They could have set up a complex land-barter agreement like those which have already given private interests vast swaths of San Francisco’s shoreline. Or they could ask the legislature to decree Public Trust compliance by fiat.

The bill (as amended April 24) reads : “Any legislative or regulatory requirement for findings of consistency with the public trust doctrine or the Burton Act trust under the Special Area Plan, the Bay Plan, or any other applicable statute, regulation, or plan shall be deemed satisfied if the Port has made a finding that the Pier 30 – 32 development is consistent with the requirements of this act.” And what are those “requirements”? Here, the genesis of the bill becomes even more murky, the result of closed door-negotiations among the Warriors, the Port, the mayor’s office, and presumably representatives from BCDC and SLC. The bill purports to lay out minimum requirements for the project—including a deep-water-vessel berthing area, a relocated fire-boat station, and public access along the perimeter of the structure. It would also nip the 630-car pier-side garage down to 500 spaces (none of which are for trust uses). It would limit office space to 70,000 square feet (a slight restriction) and mandate at least 15 days of “Public Trust-consistent” programming a year (whatever that means).

The bill declares that if these minimal “requirements” are met, the primary purpose of the development does not have to be maritime-related, but the project would still be deemed compliant with the Public Trust. AB 1273 would thus neutralize the authority of the State Land Commission and greatly reduce the clout of BCDC over the project. While the bill’s purview is restricted to Seawall 330 and Piers 30 – 32, it establishes a dangerous precedent. If San Francisco can get its shoreline exempted from the oversight of the SLC and BCDC and the protections of the Public Trust, what’s to stop other municipalities from doing the same? Is this such a wonderful project that it deserves a blanket exemption from existing law?

Further resources

The Public Trust Doctrine and the Modern Waterfront, introduction to the Public Trust Doctrine was developed by the staff of the California State Lands Commission in 2007

The Public Trust Doctrine–San Francisco’s waterfront, the November 1999 issue of the SPUR newsletter.

Warriors on the Waterfront, the Warriors’ own web site on the project

Text of AB 1273

San Francisco Bay Plan of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission

San Francisco Waterfront Alliance web site

“Warriors Arena Would Block Beauty of Bay” by Ann Killion in San Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 15, 2013

Steven Chapman, Executive Committee, Sierra Club San Francisco Group

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

San Francisco’s Proposition H of 1990, the Waterfront Land Use Plan, reserves the waterfront “for maritime uses, public access, and projects which aid in the preservation and restoration of the environment”. It specifically prohibits hotels, and sets straightforward criteria for defining an “unacceptable” land use:

• does it need to be located on the waterfront to serve its basic function?
• is it compatible with existing or planned maritime operation on surrounding parcels?
• does it provide the maximum feasible public access?
• does it improve the ecological balance of San Francisco Bay?
• does it protect the waterfront’s architectural heritage?
• does it present the best interests of the people of San Francisco?

Do these criteria sound like a description of the Warriors’ proposal?

Former San Francisco Mayor Art Agnos calls this “the most beautiful spot on the waterfront”. Should this land be used for the Warriors’ sports arena or for better public access to the shoreline? Photo courtesy San Francisco Waterfront Alliance.

San Francisco has a long history of protecting its waterfront as a public asset.

The front-page lead article of the September 1

970 Yodeler is entitled “Port Commission vs. San Francisco Bay”. At issue was a massive 18.4-acre fill and platform in the water just north of the Ferry Building. This Ferry Port Plaza, which would have included a 1,200-room hotel, a 600-foot-long commercial office building, and a garage for 2,400 cars was not built, thanks to public opposition and the Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

More positively, we tore down the old Embarcadero Freeway and started on a planning process which limited height and bulk and restricted uses to appropriate maritime activities, opening up San Francisco’s shoreline for all citizens to enjoy. We even voted on legislation to protect the waterfront from inappropriate development (see “The perfect unacceptable use”).

Yet, in recent years, that consensus has been overwhelmed by a series of public-private development proposals, each eying to capitalize on the real-estate potential of the city’s remaining shoreline parcels and undeveloped piers. The Warriors’ proposal is but the latest of the breed, but true to their name, it is perhaps the most aggressive proposal yet.

Friday, June 14 

Patagonia is a region of intrinsic natural value and striking biodiversity, one of the precious few places on the planet where the array of natural beauty still defies humankind’s imagination. It is threatened, though, by plans to build five dams on two of the region’s wildest rivers, the Baker and the Pascua.

Our speaker Kate Ross is Patagonia coordinator with International Rivers, which is a member of the Patagonia Defense Council, a broad coalition of citizens, community groups, and national and international NGOs working to protect Patagonia from destructive development.

Green Friday Potlucks are held on the second Friday of each month at the Sierra Club Office at 2530 San Pablo Ave. in Berkeley. An optional “zero waste” potluck dinner begins at 6 pm followed by our speaker’s presentation from 7 until 8:30. Please bring a healthful dish to share. Suggested donation $2. Beverages and tableware will be provided. To RSVP (appreciated but not required), to volunteer, or for more information, contact Ken Peterson at kenpeterson45@att.net or Joanne Drabek at (510)530-5216.

Beach Chalet proposed 60-foot light towers.

On May 9 the California Coastal Commission voted 11 – 0 to reject the appeal by the Sierra Club and over 200 other groups and individuals, challenging San Francisco’s approval of the Beach Chalet project. The plan is to install seven acres of artificial turf and bright sports lighting at the west end of Golden Gate Park (see February-March Yodeler, page 3).

The Sierra Club believes this is a bad decision, and we are hopeful that our legal challenge to the approval will still bear fruit (see April-May Yodeler, page 6).

The commission’s own staff had delivered a report affirming many of the concerns raised in the appeal, recommending that the project not be approved without significant modifications, and suggesting consideration of an alternative (see theYodeler.org/?p=7289).

One commissioner, Steve Blank, who had to leave before the vote, understood. The following are excerpts from his eloquent statement at the meeting.

“One of the reasons our coast looks like no other state is because of this commission. Our opening charter Section 30001 says the ‘California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource of vital and enduring interest to all the people and exists as a delicately balanced ecosystem. (b) That the permanent protection of the state’s natural and scenic resources is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation.’

“And this is the reason the coastal zone has stricter zoning than almost every part of state.

“As commissioners our decisions have to be guided by the Coastal Act and the city’s own LCP [Local Coastal Plan], as well as the coastal regulations. These are different from the criteria the city has. The LCP is pretty unambiguous in its description that says “emphasize the naturalistic landscape qualities of the western end of the of the park.”

• “60-foot light poles and night lighting clearly doesn’t meet the definition of naturalistic landscape qualities.
• “Artificial turf doesn’t meet the definition of naturalistic landscape qualities.
• “Surrounding the artificial turf with new trees doesn’t meet the definition of naturalistic landscape qualities.

“The city and the speakers made a pretty good case why the current field needs maintenance and additional security. I urge the city to provide these services.

“But the city also made the unintended case that this project looks like an industrial sports facility–the antithesis of the naturalistic definition in the LCP.

“Our job as a state agency is to determine whether this project is consistent with the policies that protect the coast for all Californians.

“I think the staff recommendations do a great job in protecting the park and expanding playing times for kids.”

Unfortunately, most commissioners seemed to have their minds made up on arrival, and even the one who seconded Steve Blank’s motion to uphold the appeal waffled when she saw the other commissioners line up behind the city.

There is still time. Whether through the court proceedings or otherwise, we hope that the city will find a way to change its plans.

Should the Tesla property become a real park–or be added to the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area for off-highway vehicles (OHV) to roar through (see August-September 2012, page H)?

Preserving the Tesla Park land is important because of its unique place in the regional ecosystem and its associated biodiversity. Tesla Park contains numerous threatened, endangered, and protected species, varied terrain, and rare plant communities, aside from its cultural riches and scenic beauty. Photo by Pete Veilleux, East Bay Wilds.

The Sierra Club is working with Friends of Tesla Park to establish the Tesla Park land in eastern Alameda County as a natural and historic park for low-impact recreation. The State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division (OHMVR), however, is moving forward on an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for adding Tesla to the Carnegie Vehicular Area. The draft is expected this fall or winter.

We have been insisting that the EIR must include analysis of non-OHV alternatives for the Tesla Park area. Thus far, the OHMVR Division has stated that it will not study these.

The OHMVR Division is holding a public workshop to unveil three alternatives for the EIR to evaluate. Through attending, you can show the Division that there is strong support for preserving this jewel of a park.

The Sierra Club, along with others in the Friends of Tesla Park alliance, is also petitioning the OHMVR Division to schedule another workshop in Alameda County.

For more information on how you can help Save Tesla Park, go to www.TeslaPark.org or e-mail Peter Rauch of the Sierra Club East Bay Public Lands Committee at peterar@berkeley.edu.

Looking south-southeast down Doolan Canyon at the area that Pacific Union Homes wants to develop. Doolan Road is in the middle of the picture. The ridge in the distance is the East Bay Regional Park District’s Ohlone Regional Wilderness containing Rose Peak, the highest peak in Alameda County, just 32 feet lower than Mount Diablo. Photo by Dick Schneider.

With strong local leadership and the backing of a unified environmental community, the prospects look good for stopping the development of Doolan Canyon.

North of I-580 and east of Dublin in eastern Alameda County, Doolan Canyon is a strikingly beautiful habitat for rare and endangered wildlife, and supports ranching and other rural uses. The main part of the canyon is not visible from the freeway and is accessible only by Doolan Road, which deadends at the East Bay Regional Park District’s recently acquired Schmitz Ranch. This property was purchased as the first step in the creation of a future Doolan Canyon-Tassajara Hills Regional Preserve.

As an unincorporated area, the canyon is currently protected by Alameda County Measure D, the voter-approved urban growth boundary (UGB–see “Stopping sprawl: Measure D and an historic victory in the year 2000″). The urban growth boundary prevents the county from approving urban development and commercial uses in the canyon. A proposal has been made, however, by Pacific Union Homes for Dublin to annex the area between the Park District lands and I-580 and approve development of nearly 2,000 senior-housing units (think Rossmoor in Walnut Creek). A subdivision of this magnitude would destroy the area’s natural values.

Over the past two years environmental groups including the Sierra Club have organized to protect the canyon against urban encroachment. The city of Livermore began proceedings to expand its Sphere of Influence to include the canyon for the purpose of maintaining an agricultural and open-space buffer between Livermore and Dublin. That effort is now stalled at the county’s Local Agency Formation Commission while Livermore and Dublin negotiate.

Recently, environmental leaders in Dublin have stepped forward with the idea of drafting a ballot measure to establish a UGB on Dublin’s east side. These leaders are the same folks who successfully ran a UGB initiative (Measure M) to protect the west Dublin hills in 2000. Nevertheless, we can expect strong opposition from the developers who want to carve up the canyon into residential units.

While it’s still early in the current effort to protect Doolan Canyon, it’s important for people interested in helping this campaign to step forward, learn more about the situation, and get involved. If you would like to help, please contact Dick Schneider at richs59354@aol.com or (510)926-0010.

Dick Schneider

Map by Bob Newey.

You’ve heard about the trend toward a paperless communication. To conserve resources, the Bay Chapter would like to do our part–but we don’t want to loose our contact with the building blocks of our organization–our members.

Do you get Sierra Club emails?

We’d like to be able to implement electronic voting for Chapter elections. We’d like to be able to send you alerts about key environmental issues in your area. We’d like to spend your valuable membership dues and donations on many important things other than paper.

We can’t do it without your e-mail address.

The Club has strict policies limiting the quantity of e-mail that we will send to you, but we can’t send you any if we don’t have your address.

WhatYouCanDo

So if you don’t already receive email from the San Francisco Bay Chapter, go to http://sfbay.sierraclub.org/updates and sign up for updates and action alerts, and the ease of electronic voting.