The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), which is in the Natural Resources Agency, is a planning and regulatory body created in 1965 in response to growing concerns by local residents about the bay’s long-term future in light of shrinking and contamination from unregulated filling. The commission maintains the San Francisco Bay Plan and issues or denies permits for development, filling and dredging within its designated regional authority. Its activities include developing strategies for dealing with the impacts of the rising sea level from climate change.

Office Location (BCDC website)

Mission Statement (Ebudget)

A century and a half ago, the San Francisco Bay was an estuary supporting thousands of plant and animal species. Tule elk, grizzley bears and antelopes shared the bay with thousands of migratory birds. That changed dramatically, starting with the Gold Rush, as San Francisco and nearby towns grew. By 1950, 137,000 acres had been cut off from the bay and by 1961, 90% of the bay’s wetlands were gone. Almost every city that dotted the bay area had plans to fill in a portion of the marsh land. Foster City used 14 million cubic yards of fill to turn a salt marsh into a new suburban town with 30,000 residents. 

In 1961, the Save San Francisco Bay Association (now called Save the Bay) arose out of a grassroots effort by citizens in nearby and surrounding neighborhoods who were becoming increasingly alarmed about the accumulation of filling and contamination in the bay, which had at the time, as a result, been reduced in size by a third from what it was in 1850.

The association’s effort was spearheaded by three women—Catherine “Kay” Kerr, Esther Gulick and Sylvia McLaughlin, who were wives of the president and two professors at the University of California—and the combination of their persistence, and the formidable nature of the facts their efforts highlighted, drew unprecedented local attention and led to the McAteer-Petris Act, co-authored by San Francisco state Senator Eugene McAteer and East Bay Assemblyman Nick Petris.

McAteer-Petris, which was signed into law by Governor Pat Brown in 1965, established the 27-person BCDC as a temporary agency for three years. The commission was directed to create a detailed study that took into account characteristics of the San Francisco Bay, a review of the prominent issues, existing proposals and the economic interests of the nearby population. It was also to develop a comprehensive, realistically enforceable plan to ensure a future balance between conservation and development. 

In January 1969, the commission’s members—based on their own research, and input and feedback from city, county, state and federal agencies, as well as interested businesses and residents, non-profit organizations, and scholars—completed and adopted the Bay Area Plan, and submitted it to the California Legislature. Seven months later, Governor Ronald Reagan signed a bill incorporating the policies of the plan into state law, and changing the status of BCDC to a permanent land-use and planning regulatory agency.

Since then, the commission, as well as carrying out the duties established in the Bay Area Plan, has also amended it several times—per specifications in the McAteer-Petris Act that BCDC  continually review it, to keep it current and based on the best scientific information —and in  response to concerns businesses and citizens raise.

The federal government, during the commission’s initial years, was also paying close attention to the work it was doing, since it was the first agency of its kind in the country. In 1972 Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act, establishing a national policy to develop, enhance, and preserve America’s coastal zones. It also empowered the BCDC to ensure that federal activities in the Pacific Ocean coastal zone are consistent with the standards of the San Francisco Bay Plan, as well as California laws.

In 1977, BCDC’s jurisdiction was again expanded, this time to provide protection to the Suisun Marsh, the largest remaining wetland near the San Francisco Bay. The Suisun Marsh Preservation Act directed the commission to preserve and enhance the integrity and diversity of the area’s aquatic and wildlife habitats, where possible restoring diked-off areas to either tidal activity or more biological productiveness. The commission also maximizes public access, while at the same time developing and implementing policies to protect the marsh from potential deterioration, in light of the expected increase in the number of visitors.

In 1982, the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan was incorporated into the San Francisco Bay Plan, as part of a cooperative effort between BCDC and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Its goals included ensuring San Francisco Bay as a major world port; continually elevating its environmental quality; providing integrated transportation facilities between  San Francisco Bay ports and other local transportation systems; and reserving adequate shoreline areas in anticipation of future growth in maritime cargo.

Disputes arose with various parties who could be affected as the commission began to establish itself and its potential influence on development and filling came to light.

However, it wasn’t until the 1990s that highly contentious scenarios began developing in response to various pending BCDC decisions, a sequence of events which led to more extensive public hearings, more time spent on deliberating, and often increasing adjustments to amendments.

In 1994, Republican state Senator Milton Marks introduced a bill which would have abolished BCDC and transferred its responsibilities to the California Coastal Commission. Opposition to the bill included environmental organizations, other government agencies, and some of the owners of property near the bay, and although Senator Marks tried to gather support by amending it several ways, it failed.

The following year, Republican Governor Pete Wilson called for elimination of BCDC in his 1995-96 California budget. Wilson wanted its duties to be assumed by the California Coastal Commission and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Control Board. The commission dodged the bullet but only after its members agreed (in a unanimous  decision) to adopt 40 recommendations from various parties reforming and streamlining a variety of its practices.

In 2001 BCDC—in collaboration with the California Ocean Protection Council, the California State Coastal Conservancy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the San Francisco Estuary Partnership—released the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Goals Project, an informational research tool for individuals or organizations involved in activities related to conservation planning for submerged areas of the bay.

In 2005, the passage of Assembly Bill 1296 directed BCDC to be part of another collaborative  effort, this one with the California Coastal Conservancy, Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Trail Project, and a variety of other entities well-versed on issues in the region. Their task is to develop an environmentally sound plan for a Bay Area Water Trail,  making the use of small recreational watercraft on the bay easier and safer, while also maintaining continuing protection of the area’s wildlife.

In 2008, Assembly Bill 2094 established the authority for BCDC to create strategies for addressing climate change and sea level rise.

In 2009, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger called for elimination of the commission as a state department by 2010, turning it into a regional entity instead, but the Legislature didn’t go along with his recommendation. 

In October 2011, all the BCDC commissioners voted in favor of a 26-months-in-the-making amendment to the San Francisco Bay Plan, which, once approved by the California Office of Administrative Law and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will cover an assortment of elements related to climate change and sea level rise. The amendment includes requiring that  both private developers and public agencies plan for rising sea levels when creating proposals for waterfront property, and suggesting to cities that instead of pushing new growth in underdeveloped areas vulnerable to sea level rise they should urge tidal wetland restoration.

The commission is reviewing its Waterfront Special Area Plan in light of San Francisco’s hosting of the 2013 America’s Cup Yacht Races.

History (Don’t Pave My Bay!)

Environmentalists, Developers Clash over How to Deal with the Rising Tide (by Alistair  Bland, San Francisco Examiner)

America's Cup Planners Should Make Concessions Now (by John King, San Francisco Chronicle)

America's Cup Developments Potential After-Effects Scrutinized (by Sarah Gantz, San Francisco Examiner)

History (BCDC website)

The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the nation’s first coastal management agency, is made up of 27 appointed members who are responsible for maintaining, protecting and enhancing the San Francisco Bay, including its nine-county shoreline and various adjacent creeks, levees, marshes, rivers, salt ponds, streams, waterways and wetlands, and the fish and wildlife in them.

Since the establishment of BCDC in 1965, more than 25 square miles of habitat in the bay have been restored, public trails and parks have been opened along 122 miles of its shoreline, and wetland revitalization projects in the works will enlarge the bay by over 1,500 acres.

The commission exercises a wide range of regulatory duties as a California coastal management agency with permitting, planning and enforcement authority. It is mandated to carry out the San Francisco Bay Plan, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Act, the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and the California Oil Spill Prevention Response Act.

Among its chief responsibilities: Issuing or denying development and disposal permits for any entity wanting to place fill or extract material, or make any substantial change in use in land, structure or water within 100 feet inland from the shoreline around San Francisco Bay (covering the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Rafael, and San Leandro, as well as Grizzly Bays and Carquinez Strait). The agency  makes its permit decisions within 90 days of receiving an application and processing fee, focusing on if a submitted proposal offers the community benefits—including continuing or enhanced usable public access to the bay that’s compatible with wildlife—which outweighs any detriment to the environment and/or local economy. And the commission has the power to enforce the rulings it makes, including imposing fines for violations, that can go up to $30,000, and higher, depending upon the nature and length of time of the infraction. 

Approving millions of dollars a year of new bay region development, BCDC is required to ensure that as much of the viable area in its jurisdiction as possible be reserved for airports, ports, water-related industry and recreation, and wildlife areas.

The commission also maintains permit authority and management, protection, and restoration responsibilities for the Suisun Marsh and its 89,000 acres of tidal marsh, managed wetlands, adjacent grasslands and waterways, and the fish and wildlife living there. In coordination with other involved agencies, scientists, and citizens and businesses in the bay area, BCDC creates and follows up status reports tracking progress regarding ongoing implementation of the mandate in the Suisun Marsh Plan, including helping develop effective solutions for ongoing water quality issues, continually monitoring potential levee system upgrade needs, to make sure all involved parties are doing everything possible to prevent catastrophic flooding, and consistently keeping tabs on all types of marsh improvement construction, to make certain it’s not having a negative impact on any amphibians, birds, fish, mammals, reptiles or waterfowl.

The commission is a co-leader in the San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Project, a 50-year non-regulatory plan for dealing with science-based subtidal research, protection, and restoration of submerged habitats in San Francisco Bay. It also leads the Water Trail Project, a collaborative attempt to develop a plan that will serve non-motorized small boats, like kayaks, throughout the bay area.

The commission is charged with making certain that federal coastal actions in the bay area properly reflect BCDC’s  policies. It reviews federal agency “consistency determinations” they’ve made on proposed activities and applications for documents like licenses, and provides approval or disapproval, in the same manner of consideration it utilizes in the permit application process it conducts with local entities. And if, after a public hearing, BCDC has an unresolvable problem with a project that requires a federal permit, license or other authorization, or is supported by federal financial assistance, the project sponsor can appeal the commission’s objections to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.  Then, if the secretary determines the project is in fact consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act, or necessary for national security purposes, he or she can authorize it, in spite of BCDC’s objections.

The commission also researches and strategizes in search of better ways to reduce oil spill risks, and improve spill response methods. As part of the bay area Regional Airport Planning Commission, BCDC reviews and comments on local airport environmental, land use, layout and master plans.

Additional BCDC functions include providing architectural design criteria for new developments; identifying habitats for restoration; conducting research studies;  convening panels; organizing workshops; crafting reports, proposals and potential plan amendments; hosting competitions for fresh ideas; creating and displaying signs that supply information on the location of bay region public access and recreational areas, and advising on parking availability; drawing and revising maps; and pursuing additional sources of funding.

Since 2008, BCDC has also had the authority to develop guidelines for addressing impacts of climate change and sea level rise. It has focused on identifying potential vulnerabilities, coming up with present and future adaptation proposals, encouraging projects that will be the most beneficial in regard to the rising sea level, and educating the bay area public on how all this will affect them, and what they can do to prepare as well. And whenever BCDC, or anyone else, believes it’s time to amend the Bay Area Plan, the commission holds a public hearing, then its members vote on whether or not to adopt the amendment, with a two-thirds super majority required to alter anything in it.

Members of the BCDC are all appointed, five—including the chairman and vice-chairman—by the governor; one by the speaker of the state Assembly; one by the state Senate Rules Committee; one by the director of finance; one each by the board of supervisors of each of the nine Bay Area counties; one each from a north, east, south, and west bay city, by the Association of Bay Area Governments; one by the California Business and Transportation Agency; one by the California Resources Agency; one by the California State Lands Commission; one by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region; one by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and one by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Among familiar names who were past commission members: U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, former U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Pineta and Congresswoman Jackie Speier.

Accessing Public Records

Climate Change Planning

Dredging and Sediment Management

Permit Applications, Forms, and Fees

Regional Airport Planning

Subtidal Habitat Goals Project

Water Trail Project

In 2010-11, the commission spent 70% of its $5.5 million budget on its core program: administration, commission and clerical support ($1.1 million), permits/consistency determinations ($1.1 million), executive, legal and legislative support ($714,000), general planning ($635,000) and enforcement ($231,000). The rest was spent on special fund projects, including: the Federal Coastal Impact Assistance Program ($334,000), Metropolitan Transportation Commission transportation planning ($282,000), a Caltrans transportation project review ($280,000), and Department of Fish and Game Oil Spill Prevention and Response Planning ($199,000).

Two-thirds of its expenses are in the form of salary and benefits; the rest is operating expenses and equipment.

Around 70% of the commission’s money comes from the state General Fund. Most of the rest comes from reimbursements from federal grants and other sources.

2011-2012 Budget (Ebudget)

3-Year Budget (pdf)

2010 Annual Report  (pdf)

Cargill Saltworks Project

Why would you fight with a company that donated $100,000 worth of salt to the Minnesota Zoo for its sea otter and dolphin pools? The answer: it wants to develop 1,430 acres of an old salt–producing site on the edge of the south bay and build 12,000 high-density homes, three schools, sports fields, retail outlets and parks.

Agribusiness giant Cargill has made salt in the bay area for decades. But in 2002, the company, which owns the Redwood City site, sold 16,500 acres of salt ponds in the area to the state and federal government for $243 million in cash and tax credits. However, it held on to a 1,400-acre site near Redwood City and several years ago hired the Arizona company DMB Associates to explore development options.DMB proposed a plan that it says preserves half the site as open space and includes 430 acres of wetlands. It would take 20 years to complete.

DMB calls the proposed development “urbanized infill,” taking advantage of already surrounding development and public services to provide needed housing. Assemblyman Roger Dickinson says the proposal is an example of “the new urbanist movement.” Marc Manuel, the chair of the Housing and Human Concerns Committee in Redwood City, says,  “It is smart because of where it’s located — near jobs.” And DMB Vice President David Smith doesn’t see how anyone could disagree. “As designed, I don’t think you could credibly say its not smart growth.”

But the Bay Conservation and Development Commission does disagree, as do many residents in the region. The Bay Plan Amendment approved in October 2011, while not specifically targeted at the project, discourages building in shoreline areas like the Cargill site that are vulnerable to rising sea levels from climate change and are better suited to habitat preservation and enhancement. The amendment incorporates climate change strategies laid out in the 2009 California Climate Adaption Strategy.

A poll by JMM Research in May 2011 found that Redwood City registered voters opposed the Cargill development 57%-28% after hearing the developer’s own description of the plan. The spread grew to 64%-28% when those polled were read a short list of concerns about the project.

“I feel like it’s really important for us regionally to understand that there are places to build and places not to build,” says Josh Sonnenfeld, a campaign manager for Save the Bay.  “We don’t need to build on the San Francisco Bay in order to meet our housing goals.”

Former San Mateo County Transportation Authority Chair Malcolm Dudley says the development would be a disaster. “You don't have to be an expert to know that a new city isolated from downtown and next to a clogged freeway is a traffic nightmare,” Dudley said. “Cargill and its developer must be aware of this, and that is probably why they are working so hard to obscure the facts with anecdotes and misinformation.”

No part of the Cargill project is close to receiving approval from Redwood City, which is conducting a state-mandated environmental impact report.

Who Are Cargill/DMB? (Don’t Pave My Bay!)

Debate Over Developing Redwood City’s Saltworks Continues, Peninsula Seeks More Housing (by Alexandra Wexler, Peninsula Press)

In San Francisco Bay, a Question Whether to Build or Retreat (by Jennifer Weeks, The Daily Climate)

Debate Over Developing Redwoods City's Saltworks Continues (by Alexandra Wexler, Peninsula Press)

Huge Development on Fringe of Bay Sparks Debate over Smart Growth (by Maureen Nandini Mitra, SF Public Press)

Saltworks’ Environmental Problems Worsen (Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club)

Poll: Redwood City Voters Oppose Cargill Development by 57% to 28% (Save the Bay blog)

Cargill — If You Build It, the Roads Will Clog (Former San Mateo County Transportation Authority Chair Malcolm Dudley, The Almanac)

America’s Cup

In January 2011, San Francisco was chosen to host the 2013 America’s Cup sailing event. Forty-three days of racing spread out over more than a year will culminate in a final race in September 2013. The event is expected to infuse $1.2 billion into the local economy and generate 8,000 new jobs. Sections of the waterfront will be developed that the city could not otherwise have afforded, and, some say, might not otherwise have wanted.

The city is preparing an environmental impact report to assess the effect of building and renovating piers and other infrastructure work. But 11 months after the initial agreement, concerns remained about what kind of changes to the waterfront would be made and how it would affect local access.

In November 2011, San Francisco Supervisor David Chiu, who serves on the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, said, “The more quickly organizers take some of the issues off the table, the easier they make it for everybody.”

Event organizers early on dropped one contentious proposal to use a quarter-mile stretch of water between Piers 14 and 22 as a docking area for 26 mega yachts that would have effectively walled off neighboring Rincon Park. But other issues remain. Governor Gavin Newsom signed an agreement in December 2010 that gives the America’s Cup Event Authority the right to negotiate construction of two permanent marinas in the two open basins between the Ferry Building and AT&T Park.

That didn’t sit well with the commission, whose waterfront rules treat open basins as essential. Commenting on the open waters issue, Vice Chairwoman Anne Halsted said, “I would not be willing to compromise that in the long term.” Every commissioner at the November 2011 meeting expressed opposition to new permanent marinas.

San Francisco Chosen to Host America's Cup (by John Cote, San Francisco Chronicle)

Public Comment Period Opens in San Francisco (San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee press release)

Message to America's Cup: Don't Steal Our Bay (by John King, San Francisco Chronicle)

BCDC Considers America’s Cup Mega Yachts Revised Plans on November 3rd (Rincon Hill blog)

America's Cup Planners Should Make Concessions Now (by John King, San Francisco Chronicle)

Kill the Bay (Conservation and Development Commission)

BCDC made Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s lengthy hit list of boards and commissions the state could do without in 2010. More than two-thirds of the commission’s budget is provided by the state’s General Fund and cutting it off would save the state about $4 million annually. It was suggested that although the state would be jettisoning control, the commission itself need not disappear. The commission could raise permit fees it charges government agencies and companies for development and disposal in the region, and look for other alternative funding sources. Another suggestion involving remaking the commission as a quasi-independent agency modeled after the California Coastal Commission.

Elements of the plan appealed to BCDC Executive Director Will Travis, who initially pointed out, “My largest division is administrative services, because I can't do anything without getting the approval of different state departments. We have huge costs in terms of going through review. And as a stand-alone agency, we wouldn't have those costs.” But a staff report concluded that beyond there being “no compelling governance reasons for eliminating BCDC,” there was also no alternative funding mechanism available other than the General Fund. 

The commission was not eliminated.

It wasn’t the first time the Schwarzenegger administration had taken a run at the commission. Its 2004 California Performance Review (CPR) included a suggestion that scaling back of BCDC activities might be in order. The report noted that “critics have charged that it has overstepped its authority by assuming the role of other agencies, which has led to delays.” It recommended that the commission come up with ways to improve its permitting process and specifically make sure it hadn’t “overstepped its authority” in the way it handled permits for sand mining, maintenance dredging and routine dock repairs.

Shortly after release of the governor’s ambitious reorganization plan, reports surfaced about the large influence that corporations had on its shaping. Chevron, which has significant interests in the Bay Area, was singled out for its role, and streamlining BCDC was generally considered to be one of its favored suggestions. The Associated Press reported that the business-oriented Bay Planning Coalition, of which Chevron is a board member, made specific complaints about BCDC that were used as a primary source by the CPR. The CPR did not use any of the voluminous material submitted in rebuttal by the commission. Between Schwarzenegger’s election in October 2003 and September 2004, the San Ramon company contributed more than $500,000 to the California Republican Party. Three weeks after the report was issued, Chevron donated $100,000 to a Schwarzenegger-controlled political fund. 

Chevron Donates to Schwarzenegger, Gets Removal of Restrictions on Oil Refineries in California (by Tom Chorneau, Associated Press)

Report of the California Performance Review Commission (pdf)

It Takes a Watchdog to Preserve the Bay (San Francisco Chronicle editorial)

Staff Report and Recommendation on Report on the Governance and Financing of Bay Management (BCDC website) (pdf)

There have been varying parties calling for reform of the way the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission does business quite frequently in the 46 years it’s been in existence, with public hearings and newspaper articles about its activities a regular occurrence in the Northern California Bay community. Currently, the areas where reforms to BCDC are being called for most often regard the actions it is taking to address climate change and rising sea levels.

The San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association (SPUR), while in agreement with the agency’s concerns about the topics, and commitment to them, feels there are several areas where BCDC can improve, including its view that the commission has thus far not passed along satisfactory assurances to property owners and developers about “their future liabilities,” and has not yet hit upon the clearest, most helpful way to guide local governments in processing all the fast-moving climate change updates. And SPUR is especially concerned that BCDC not spend so much time and energy addressing the sea rise topic that other conservation and development issues and goals get lost in the shuffle, or even mishandled, as a result.

Ian Wren of the San Francisco Baykeeper (the self-described “San Francisco Bay’s pollution watchdog since 1989”) writes that they are clearly supportive of BCDC’s commitment to addressing sea level rise, though they believe the agency needs to do a lot more to educate the public on what will happen if the commission doesn’t continue moving ahead with further actions tightly-focused on the issue. And like SPUR, the Baykeeper also feels BCDC needs to provide more  help to other governing bodies on how to best move forward themselves on global warming issues. Additionally, the Baykeeper has in mind many more solutions they’re hoping BCDC strive for, including providing “design guidelines for new and redevelopments in areas susceptible to sea level rise” and “protection of priority areas.”

Meanwhile, also in regard to reform, the commission constantly creates new amendments, and revises those that already exist, as additional information and situations warrant changes.

At the present time there are three BCDC proposals awaiting decisions: (1) A Bay Plan amendment, which would remove the port priority use designation at Hunters Point Naval shipyard, that the Redevelopment Agency of the City and County of San Francisco is recommending, and with which BCDC agrees, noting the alteration would conform to the McAteer-Petris Act; (2) An amendment to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan segment of the Bay Area Plan, which will be the topic of a public hearing on January 5, 2012, centering around possibly granting temporary berthing use of four bay area water basins during various upcoming America Cup yacht races, a proposal with which BCDC is now in support of, after many months of adjustments to the original submission by the Port of San Francisco and the America’s Cup Event Authority, LLC; and (3) An amendment to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, which would allow an international cruise terminal to be located on Pier 27, and the retention of the shed at Pier 23—with various issues surrounding the amendment still under discussion, including the fact that the bay view would be hampered by cruise ships and keeping the Pier 23 shed as it is, and that there would be a need to close a part of a wharf plaza when a cruise line is at Pier 27.

SPUR's Take On Amending the Bay Plan (posted by Laura Tam, SPUR blog)

BCDC Approves Amendment to the Bay Plan Addressing Sea Level Rise (by Ian Wren, San Francisco Baykeeper)

Proposed Special Area Plan to Allow an International Cruise Terminal to be Located on Pier 27 (BCDC website)

Proposed Bay Plan Amendment to Delete Port Priority Use Designation at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard (BCDC website)

Proposed Bay Plan Amendment Regarding Open Water Basin Policies at Brannan Street Wharf, Rincon Point, Broadway and Northeast Wharf Open Water Basins (BCDC website)

Climate Control

In direct response to an executive order from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Natural Resources Agency led a multi-agency effort to outline the dangers to the state from climate change and make a series of recommendations to manage its impacts. The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy warned of serious problems already surfacing from rising sea levels, earlier runoff from snowmelt and rainwater, fewer cold nights and more extreme hot days.

Many homes and business in the San Francisco Bay region are at or below sea level and BCDC predicts that many of them will face significant problems in the future as climate change causes the ocean to rise. The commission projects that 270,000 people and $62 billion of assets will be at risk from flooding as water levels rise 16 inches by 2050 and 55 inches by decade’s end.

In October 2011, the commission unanimously amended its San Francisco Bay Plan to add a section about climate control and update its 22-year-old statistics on sea levels. The plan, which contains policies that BCDC uses to determine whether to approve permits for projects, modifies its approach to how shoreline areas susceptible to flooding will be dealt with by requiring cities or developers to produce a cost-benefit analysis of building in low-lying areas and to submit a plan to cope with sea level rise and other climate change eventualities.

The regulations pass through a review process that includes the state's Office of Administrative Law, and the federal Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Not everyone is happy . . . and not for the usual reasons as some developers hail the new regulations as a sensible scaling back of regulatory interference and some environmentalists fear that an opportunity for real reform has been lost.

2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (pdf)

Bay Area Could Become First Region to Plan for Sea Level Rise in Long-Term Development (by Julia Scott, Mercury News)

BCDC Bay Plan Amendments (by Michael B. Wilmar and Alex Merritt, law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton)

Environmentalists

At the outset of the plan amendment process, some environmentalists were pushing for an outright moratorium on shoreline development. They didn’t get that. Some wanted language that clearly made the proposed Cargill/DMB 12,000-home Saltworks development dead on arrival. They didn’t get that either.

But BCDC Executive Director Will Travis hailed the new plan as “a giant step forward in acknowledging that sea level rise is a big deal in the Bay Area” and David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, tended to agree. Lewis said his organization was happy with the final product and that those who said the regulations had been watered down during the drafting process either weren’t paying attention or indulging in some wishful thinking. “In the last couple months, I think they saw the writing on the wall,” he said.

But some environmentalists were more skeptical. “The bottom line is that there are a lot of good things in the plan, but we feel it tends to be a little too weak,” said Marianna Raymond, chair of the Baylands Committee of the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club. “It tends to open the door to development on previously undeveloped wetlands.”

Sierra Club Bay chapter Chairman Arthur Feinstein agreed. “It could have used stronger language in telling communities that building in a low-lying area is going to be costly.”

Some observers viewed the clash over the amended plan as a fight between people who believed in global warming and those who did not. At a contentious BCDC meeting in May 2011, business leaders were outraged at inclusion of language from the California Climate Adaptation Strategy 2009 report that accepted climate change as a fact. When asked what it was about the report that gave them “heartburn,” real estate lawyer Zachary Wasserman held up a copy of the document and said, “It is, in fact, the whole document.”

One aspect of the amended plan that mollified developers but alarmed environmentalists was BCDC’s insistence that the regulations that took into account rising sea levels from climate change would not affect anyone operating outside the 100-foot shoreline band that represents the commission’s permit jurisdiction. At least one environmental group, the Bay Planning Coalition, disagreed and all but predicted a future fight over this commission assurance.

“BCDC staff’s position is unequivocally wrong,” the coalition asserted in a written analysis of the plan. “BCDC can apply its provisions to any project or activity that requires a federal permit or receives any federal assistance, if BCDC determines the project affects any land or water within BCDC’s formal jurisdiction—even if the project is located entirely outside BCDC’s permit jurisdiction.”

And because BCDC has standing as federal law by virtue of its connection to the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Act, according to Bay Planning Coalition, the provisions that “address sea level rise matter. A lot.”

San Francisco Bay Area Enacts Sea Level Rise Policy (by Debra Kahn and Climate Wire, Scientific American)

The Regulatory Reach of BCDC’s Bay Plan (The Bay Planning Coalition) (pdf)

Fierce Opposition Erupts over Bay Climate Change Plan (by John Upton, The Bay Citizen)

Business and Development Interests

In the runup to BCDC releasing its new amended Bay Plan, concerns were expressed about how the commission was conducting itself. Redwood City Mayor Lou Covey released a letter of concern that warned of the “unnecessary rush” to approve the regulations. He was troubled by “vague language, undefined prohibitions and mandates, unclear authority for application and ambiguous standards.” He bemoaned the lack of input by business-oriented groups like the Bay Planning coalition, local government and the public. He warned of “over-reaching” by the commission that could result in “legislative expansion of BCDC authority” and a negative effect on development. Overall, he said the commission lacked a balanced approach between local control, the state regulatory environment and economic development.

But after the plan’s release, kinder, gentler thoughts were expressed. “The initial language, perhaps BCDC didn't fully understand" the implications it would have for development, said Paul Campos, general counsel for the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area. “Now, all stakeholders are looking, which produced this better document.”

Even representatives of Cargill’s proposed 12,000-home Saltworks development that some thought would be heavily impacted by the new plan called it “an appropriate move toward better planning to protect Bay Area cities against the threat of sea-level rise.” DMB Associates, the firm behind the Saltworks development, spent more than $350,000 on lobbyists over the past year to influence the plan and other state regulations and legislation, according The Bay Citizen.

A Note from the Mayor  (by Lou Covey, The Local Motive)

Enviro Fight over Waterfront Projects  (by J.K. Dineen, San Francisco Business Times)

Developers Thumbs up New Bay Lands Policy Amendments (by Austin Walsh, Redwood City Patch)

Power Grab Threatens Development (by J.K. Dineen, San Francisco Business Times) (pdf)

Saltworks Development Fueling Uproar over Bay Climate-Change Plan (by John Upton, The Bay Citizen)

Will Travis, 1995-2011

Alan Pendleton, 1983 – 1995

Michael Wilmar, 1979 – 1983

Charlie Roberts, 1973 – 1979

Joe Bodovitz, 1966 – 1973 He was previously a junior officer in the Navy and a reporter for six years at the San Francisco Examiner, where he covered urban planning and the early days of the environmental movement.