Oyster Point Marina is result of Bay fill dump era

Trash Dumps and the Hidden History of the Bay ShorelineFirst there were marshes; then there were dumps. The dumps were eventually turned into regulated landfills, and the landfills into shoreline parks.

Trash Dumps and the Hidden History of the Bay Shoreline

First there were marshes; then there were dumps. The dumps were eventually turned into regulated landfills, and the landfills into shoreline parks.

The Oyster Point Landfill is a closed, unlined Class III landfill that was in operation from 1956 to 1970. Prior to 1956, what would become the Oyster Point Landfill area consisted of tidal marshlands and upland soils and bedrock.

Between 1956 and 1970, the City of South San Francisco leased the site (approximately 57 acres) to South San Francisco Scavenger Company. 

In 1956, Scavenger began disposal operations at the landfill. Initially, municipal solid waste was disposed of on the ground and burned. This activity ended in 1957 following the enactment of laws prohibiting open air burning of rubbish in the Bay Area. To address the new air quality restrictions South City and Scavenger established a solid waste disposal site on the submerged lands just east of the original Oyster Point. 

The landfill was developed in three phases. Filling of the first section began in 1957 and was completed by late 1961. The first area to be filled extended into the Bay about 1,500 feet eastward from the original bluff. Scavenger placed waste directly into the tidelands and used a wire fence to control the discharge of solids into the Bay due to tidal action. Waste disposal operations eventually resulted in the relocation of the shoreline approximately 3,000 feet to the east of the pre-landfill shoreline. 

The landfill material consists of up to 45 feet of poorly compacted municipal and industrial waste. Typical waste found within the landfill includes the following: chemicals, drums, paper, cardboard, organic matter, wood, glass, metal, rubber, rocks, concrete, and other materials. The base of the landfill material has been compressed into, and mixed with, the upper part of the Bay Mud. The volume of waste in the landfill is approximately 2.5 million cubic yards and total tonnage of this material is approximately 1.4 million tons. This volume of waste would cover a football field almost to the height of the Empire State Building. 

Beginning in 1961, the landfill received liquid industrial waste for disposal. The types of liquid waste included paints, thinners, and coagulated solvent sludge. The liquid wastes were placed in a sump (Sump 1). No records describing the construction of the sump have been found. Liquid industrial wastes were disposed of in this sump from 1961 until 1966. In July 1966, the City of South San Francisco discontinued the use of Sump 1 and used Sump 2 until 1967. The total volume of liquid industrial waste received by the landfill in 1965 and 1966 is estimated at 608,351 and 378,680 gallons, respectively. Sump 1 alone is almost enough to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool. 

Consistent with landfill practices at that time, no liner was installed at the site. Waste disposal design features such as liners, cellular division of waste, and leachate collection systems were not installed. Instead, the waste materials were placed directly onto the Bay Mud and soils overlying bedrock. In order to contain the solid waste from contact with waters of the State, Bay Mud berms were constructed around portions of the waste disposal areas in 1961, 1962, and 1964. However, there is no data to suggest that the industrial waste sumps were ever constructed with additional berms or dikes to control the migration of liquid wastes. 

In 1962, a small craft harbor was constructed along the north shore of the landfill. To create a breakwater for the east side of the marina, the second phase of landfill was placed in the form of a mole extending from the eastern end of the first fill and north about 400 feet into the Bay. The third phase of filling began in 1964 and was accomplished by dredging up Bay Mud and forming mud dikes and a dike-enclosed cell in which solid waste was later placed.

Upon completion of the disposal operations, various landfill closure activities took place through the late 1980s. The closed landfill then became the site for development of the Oyster Point Marina/Park.  

The landfill is currently owned by the City of South San Francisco and is operated as a marina, ferry terminal, yacht club, hotel, office space, and open space. South City is responsible for landfill maintenance and the San Mateo County Harbor District manages marina operations pursuant to a Joint Powers Agreement that terminates in 2026.

South City hopes to redevelop the site. The 2015 Semiannual Oyster Point Landfill Report states that a project would include excavation of landfill materials at the former Oyster Point Landfill and relocation of these materials on- and/or off-site. The landfill cap would be upgraded to meet the current requirements of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations with the approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and San Mateo County Environmental Health Division. 

The first phase of redevelopment plans call for up to 600,000 square feet of office/R&D space, envisioned as a biotech campus, and possibly a retail/restaurant building, in the area currently occupied by the existing commercial development at the eastern side of the landfill site. Phase I also includes the reconfiguration of Marina Boulevard and a portion of Oyster Point Boulevard, and a shuttle turn-around will be constructed adjacent to the Ferry Terminal. Parcels to the east of the new development will be graded and improved as sports fields. Further east a future hotel and retail complex is envisioned. The existing Yacht Club structure and the Harbor District maintenance building would remain.

Where is the wisdom in developing such a risky site?  Health, safety, and public access concerns include flooding from landfill subsidence and sea-level rise, Bay saltwater breaching the landfill cap, underground electrical saltwater intrusion, gas explosions, and liquefaction.

On Dec. 9, 2015, Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board sent the City of South San Francisco an enforcement letter regarding recurrent flooding overtopping the landfill cap.  The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Mateo County Division of Environmental Health, and Bay Area Air Quality Management District are the agencies that regulate the landfill.

 

Refer to the following documents for more info:

King Tide flooding at Oyster Point Marina—Wed., Nov. 25, 2015

 

Women to compete at Mavericks!

To-date no women have competed in the Mavericks surf contest and the event does not include a women’s heat. Typically competitive surfing heats are not mixed gender. Requiring that top women athletes preform like top male athletes is unreasonable. By doing this the Titans of Mavericks board of directors and “Committee 5” have effectively blocked women from competing.

I support including an all women’s heat in the Mavericks event. Not a mixed gender heat.

 Paige Alms of Haiku, Maui

Please checkout my Thursday, Nov. 5, 2015 presentation to the California Coastal Commission. 

After my presentation Coastal Commissioner Mark Vargas of Los Angeles made a motion to amend the Coastal Development Permit for the Titans of Mavericks surf contest and add a condition to allow women to compete in the 2016-2017 event. Commissioner Martha McClure of Del Norte County seconded the motion.  The motion passed in a 7-4 vote.

Coastal Commission 7-4 vote count

  • Bochco - no
  • Cox - yes
  • Groom - no
  • Howell - yes
  • Lueveno - yes
  • McClure - yes
  • Shallenberger - no
  • Turnbull-Sanders - yes
  • Uranga - yes
  • Vargas - yes
  • Kinsey - no

VARGAS MOTION TO AMEND CDP TO INCLUDE WOMEN

Coastal Commissioner Mark Vargas made the following remarks and motion:  

“I'm still a little concerned about the fact that there is no clear plan for highlighting, involving, or encouraging the growth of women in this event or in this sport.  I would really love to see an amendment.  I understand that were too close to the event this year, but if this is going to be contemplated as an extension (permit extension) that could possibly have four more years of extension we should start contemplating a plan for encouragement and inclusion on women in this event. So that we (Coastal Commission) can review it, and have that information available for next year when this permit comes back up for renewal. I appreciate that it's a one time, one year permit but Mavericks has been going on for a long time and Mavericks will continue to go on.  I'm sure we'll be back here next year and it would be unfortunate if we don't start planning now for the inclusion of women and to see more women involved in this program, and not wait until a year from now.  
I'll float it out there.  I'd like to see if I can make an amending motion to add a specific condition that we ask the applicant to provide a plan for encouraging equal opportunity for women surfers in future events.”

COASTAL COMMISSION MEETING VIDEO LINKS  

My presentation is 2:10:37 minutes into the video and the motion is 2:56:24 into the video.

 Maya Gabeira of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

 

News links:

Mavericks needs women

Half Moon Bay Review — Op-Ed by Sabrina Brennan — Jan 27, 2016

Just Add Water: Women seek equal footing at Mavericks

Santa Cruz Sentinel — Haven Livingston — Dec 19, 2015

Half Moon Bay local Sabrina Brennan presented a sideshow of female big wave surfers during the California Coastal Commission hearing in November when the commission approved a coastal development permit for the Titans of Mavericks big wave surf contest. Brennan, also a San Mateo Harbor Commissioner, said she attended the meeting as a concerned citizen. She has been watching women surf Mavericks, located near the Pillar Point Harbor, for years and has been disappointed to never see them in the contest. She intended to illuminate inequality in the selection process that newcomer Cartel Management and its “Committee 5” use to select Titans of Mavericks invitees.

Mavericks Faces Pressure for Women to Surf Big-Wave Contest

Forum KQED radio — host Mina Kim — Fri, Dec 11, 2015

  • Guests: Bianca Valenti, professional surfer and Bruce Jenkins, sports columnist, San Francisco Chronicle

Women want spot in big wave surf competition in California

Washington Post — By Kristin J. Bender — Dec 5, 2015

How Women Will Evolve Big Wave Surfing

Inertia — by Beth O'Rourke — Nov. 16, 2015

Add women to Mavericks lineup and be on right side of history

Half Moon Bay Review — by Clay Lambert — Nov. 11, 2015

Women to get fair shake at Mavericks

Santa Cruz Sentinel — by Haven Livingston — Nov. 6, 2015

Titans gets Coastal Commission approval: Permit issued for Mavericks surf competition

San Mateo Daily Journal — by Samantha Weigel — Nov. 6, 2015

Mavericks organizers get crucial last permit

Half Moon Bay Review — by Carina Woudenberg — Nov. 5, 2015

Commissioner IT Report

October 21, 2015  |  by Commissioner Brennan

This report was included in the Oct. 21, 2015 Harbor Commission board packet (Item 6).

FIREWALL PURCHASE SPLIT IN HALF

Less than one month after being sworn-in, Commissioner Mattusch inquired about two handwritten checks listed in the Feb. 4, 2015 meeting packet. Harbor District IT and Human Resources Manager Marietta Harris explained that the checks totaling $19,075 were for new “routers” (firewalls).

President Brennan requested follow-up information because the Board had not approved the purchase. On February 10, 2015, Ms. Harris emailed two requisition forms. Palo Alto Networks firewalls and software subscriptions were split on those requisition forms. Acting General Manager Scott Grindy's and Marietta Harris’s signatures were on both. 

The forms listed three servers, however, the words “server” were scribbled out and replaced with the handwritten word “firewall.” President Brennan asked why “servers” had originally been typed on the forms. Ms. Harris said it was a typo and that the District had previously purchased servers from the same vendor.

President Brennan requested the firewall invoice and Ms. Harris responded via email, “We paid from the quote because we were all in the office discussing what we needed and in order to get the discount we wanted to act fast.”

A Sept. 2, 2015 report from Interim General Manager Glenn Lazof, indicated that the IT vendor may have been instructed by District management staff to split the project onto two quotes. By splitting the purchase onto two requisition forms management staff avoided the board authorization requirement on purchases above $15,000.

Two weeks after Commissioner Mattusch's question about the $19,075 payment, at the Feb. 18, 2015 meeting Ms. Harris announced her resignation.

CAUSE FOR CONCERN

On March 30, 2015, President Brennan phoned Acting General Manager Grindy and expressed concern about a meeting held while he was away. Ms. Brennan had observed Finance Director Debra Galarza sharing a draft staff report with a vendor. Ms. Brennan was concerned because the vendor had not yet submitted an estimate to the District and the draft included a $47,000 purchase request. 

Ms. Brennan asked Mr. Grindy if he thought tempting a service provider with an inflated budget number in advance of receiving an estimate was prudent. Mr. Gindy said, “It’s not unusual.”

On May 11, 2015, President Brennan followed up with an email to District Counsel Steven Miller, Interim General Manager Glenn Lazof, and Commissioner Tom Mattusch. The email stated:

On Monday, March 23, 2015, Debra Galarza emailed me and requested a meeting at the 504 Avenue Alhambra building in El Granada. She needed access to the new office space so she could meet with The Well Connected Office (IT vendor) while they performed a site visit in advance of providing the District with an estimate. At the time Debra was acting as General Manager while Scott was away at the Port Captains Conference.
I emailed Randy Kinghorn (the District’s realtor) and asked him to open the building. Randy, Steve Almes, Steve’s employee, Debra and I met at the District’s new headquarters. Steve and his employee checked phone jacks and server rooms, Randy and I looked at the public meeting room related to a new wall that would be installed by the building owner as part of the lease agreement.
Randy left and I waited in the conference room for Steve and Debra to finish. I was writing email on my cell phone when they joined me. Steve and his employee discussed some of the IT possibilities, overall Steve said the building would not require much work because it was set up well from an IT perspective.
Debra handed Steve a draft staff report for the upcoming April 1st meeting and asked Steve if everything looked okay. I asked if I could take a look at the draft. I noticed that $47,000 was recommended for IT services related to moving the District’s headquarters from South San Francisco to El Granada.

THE TAIL OF THE MISSING HARBOR SERVERS

At the April 1, 2015, Board meeting, President Brennan opposed a recommendation by commissioner David to hire the Well Connected Office for IT-related moving costs. A few days later Ms. Brennan learned that the District was not in possession of servers purchased in 2012 from The Well Connected Office.

Ms. Brennan alerted Counsel about the missing servers.

On April 5, 2015, Steve Almes, owner of The Well Connected Office, informed Mr. Grindy that he no longer wished to work for the District.

By reviewing past agendas and board packets, Ms. Brennan was able to confirm that on May 16, 2012, the Board approved spending up to $40,000 on IT equipment. A member of the public, John Ullom, confirmed via PRA request that on May 31, 2012 the District paid the IT contractor $34,689.31 for servers (check #040875).

On May 18, 2015, Deputy Secretary Debbie Nixon provided a formal response letter to PRA requests President Brennan made in March and April 2015. The letter stated, “Yes, the equipment was delivered to the District. We assume the equipment was installed.” The letter was incorrect. The custom servers were never actually built or delivered.

The next day, May 19th, Interim General Manager Lazof sent a memo to District staff stating, “Effective immediately I am directing all staff and contractors to cease any professional contact with Commissioner Brennan, other than at Public Meetings, or as explicitly approved by me or an authorized designee.” On the same day Mr. Lazof also sent a memo to the board accusing President Brennan of harassing him during a phone conversation. Ms. Brennan stated that Mr. Lazof’s untrue and retaliatory allegations were intended to tarnish her credibility.

SHOOT THE MESSENGER

On May 26, 2015, Commissioner Bernardo appeared incensed by the suggestion that management staff might have paid for equipment that was never delivered. He was the Board Treasurer in 2012 and it was his job to review and approve bills in advance of payment.

Commissioner Bernardo said that Ms. Brennan should be removed as Board President because she made past “false allegations” against the District’s IT consultant. Commissioner Bernardo also said, “There is no fraud, there is no theft, no criminality whatsoever.” And he went one step further to suggest that President Brennan’s concerns could have resulted in a lawsuit against the District.

TWO REFUNDS

On August 8, 2015, the Harbor District received a long overdue $34,689.31 refund for servers that were paid for in 2012 but never delivered.

At the Sept. 2, 2015 Harbor District meeting, Marcia Schnapp, the Interim Administrative Manager confirmed that the District had received a refund for the firewalls ($19,075) less a 7% restocking fee. During the meeting Commissioner Brennan requested a copy of the refund check to verify the amount.

To-date the total refund for the firewalls and servers is $52,158.26.

The Sept. 2, 2015 staff report (Item 14) disclosed that IT vendor Steve Almes said that Marietta Harris told him to issue invoices for equipment he had not delivered. During the meeting Interim General Manager Lazof said that staff had not been following the District’s purchasing policies and he detailed a number of accounting errors that were still being resolved. He said that multiple estimates should be requested for equipment and that consultants should be prohibited from purchasing equipment on behalf of the District except in an emergency.

 

CONCLUSION 

  • At the September 4, 2014 Board meeting, the District’s General Manager Peter Grenell announced his retirement. Grenell's last day was Dec. 31, 2014. He managed the district for 17 and a 1/2 years. 
  • At the February 18, 2015 Board meeting, the District’s IT and Human Resources Manager Marietta Harris announced her resignation.
  • On July 1, 2015, the District adopted Resolution 27-12 to approve an agreement with a new IT vendor. 
  • On August 19, 2015, the District’s Interim General Manager Glenn Lazof sent a formal letter to a member of the public, John Ullom, acknowledging his role in recovering a refund for IT equipment that was never delivered to the District.
  • On September 4, 2015, the District’s Finance Director Debra Galarza resigned. A contractor is currently filling in as finance director.
  • On September 25, 2015, the District's Deputy Secretary Debbie Nixon resigned. A temporary employee was trained to cover the position and is filling in.
  • At the October 7, 2015 Board meeting, the Board approved an employment agreement to hire new General Manager Steven McGrath.
  • On October 7, 2015, Commissioner Nicole David announced her resignation, citing “health concerns” as the reason for resigning nine months into a four-year term.
  • On October 9, 2015, Harbormaster Scott Grindy submitted a letter of resignation. His last day will be Oct. 23, 2015.

Accountability, Culture Shift & Teamwork

The following letter was delivered to the board on Wednesday, Oct. 21, 2015.

Dear President Mattusch and Commissioners,

Over the past few years the Harbor District has experienced financial internal control problems and procurement problems. Tonight my informational report regarding IT equipment, software and support procurement (Item 6) is a reflection of my concerns about the District’s fiscal accountability. My hope is that this report will serve to clear the air on the specific reasons for my concerns. It is my sincere hope that the board and new management will put these problems behind us with improved fiscal oversight, innovative financial transparency tools such as OpenGov, appropriate accounting software, and policy recommendations from the Finance Committee.

Culture Shift

The Harbor District has experienced a rapid culture shift over the past ten months. In January 2015 the board gained two new commissioners, shifting the District in a more open, progressive, and public-friendly direction. The retirement of the past General Manager at the end of 2014 and the relocation of the District’s administrative office back to the Coastside in May 2015 were indications that a transition was unfolding.

General Manager Peter Grenell ran the District for over 17 years. Commissioner Jim Tucker was first appointed in June 1998 and served for almost 17 years. Since their departure in December 2014 the District has experienced significant and sometimes painful culture shift towards a more contemporary form of governance. Past mismanagement left the current board with an astounding number of complex policy issues to clean up, and that process may require years to complete. To their credit the Harbor Patrol has continued to provide excellent service and emergency response while the board and management makes necessary changes. 

Theory of Change 

With change comes creativity, innovation, improved accountability, opportunities to evaluate and define long-term goals, and the need for greater cooperation.

Diversity Balances Biases

The District needs a complementary team – a team in which the members are different from each other, not similar, which means acknowledging the importance of differences in style and opinion. Each person’s style provides a counterpoint to the others. Our differences can provide opportunities to balance naturally biased judgments. Giving consideration to diverse perspectives and thinking critically about the challenges facing the District is a necessary process that builds a solid foundation for strong decision-making. That is teamwork, and is the reason why most governments are multi-member boards.

Trust, Cooperation and Flexibility

To keep the forward momentum the board and management must build trust within the community by being transparent and responsive, setting clear achievable goals, modernizing outdated policies, improving fiscal accountability, and correcting past mismanagement. And to do this we must become nimble.

Daryl Connor, in his 1998 book Leading at the Edge of Chaos, popularized the term “nimble” describing nimble organizations as those with “a sustained ability to quickly and effectively respond to the demands of change while delivering high performance.” Nimble leaders create goals and performance measures which recognize and reward nimbleness—for example, discovering a new way to meet regulatory requirements while also encouraging public participation.

Nimble leaders anticipate the need for adaptability by hiring flexible employees and preparing current employees for continuous change. They constantly push for higher performance, yet recognize that failure is to be expected with innovation. 

Fluid Structure

Nimble leaders create fluid organizational structures that encourage interactions and change to meet new situations and solve new problems. They do not simply move boxes around on the organizational chart, but create structures that encourage collaboration and teamwork.

Implementing Objectives to Meet Goals

Nimble leaders balance near-term objectives and long-term goals. Commissioners and management staff need to look beyond the next election and not lose sight of the bigger picture and long-term goals. While responding to the public’s demands for greater transparency, for example, a nimble leader will also ensure that administrative staff members are receiving training and experience in working with new transparency tools such as OpenGov.

Adapting to Change

Nimble leaders overcome vested interests, legacy systems, and sacred cows by encouraging open communication and creativity.

Proactive vs. Reactive

Nimble leaders are always on the lookout for “bad news,” knowing that finding it before it finds the organization is important in order to respond effectively. They find ways to identify internal problems by encouraging internal critics, rotating personnel and hiring people with new perspectives. They discover problems in service delivery by meeting their customers.

Nimble leaders do not rely on a crisis to force change. Crisis in and of itself is not a powerful impetus for long-term change. If it were, cardiac events would cause heart patients to alter their lifestyles appropriately. Fear does not create change. More often, fear leads to denial and creates a narrative that reframes facts to fit preconceived ideas.

Instead, nimble leaders are proactive so that their agencies respond quickly and effectively to the demands of change.

Simple Plan

The Harbor District needs a simple turnaround plan.

One of the nimble leader’s most important roles is to distill an organization’s many priorities and strategies into a simple plan, so that employees can remember it, internalize it and act on it. With clear goals and metrics, everyone can pull in the same direction, knowing how their work contributes to those goals.

Rules of the Road

In 2015 the Commission adopted board norms and a new culture began to take shape based on three values: respect, integrity, and equality. This is good news because cynicism and politics can metastasize within an organization, and are amplified by public opinion when an agency lacks core values or is not actually living out its code of ethics.

What truly matters is that the District has to live by its values, reinforce them every day and not tolerate behavior that’s at odds with those values. On July 15, 2015 the board unanimously approved the San Mateo County Harbor District Code of Ethics and Values adapted from the 1999 City of Santa Clara code. This was a positive step forward.

New Leadership

The past 10 months has presented numerous challenges for employees, contractors, the public and the Board. The District is in the process of implementing recommendations made by the Civil Grand Jury and LAFCo. And while necessary management changes and policy changes have occurred, more improvement is still needed.

The Harbor Commission is moving in a positive direction, and with Steven McGrath as the new General Manager comes new opportunity. My hope is that the Commission, the new General Manager, and the new administration will work cooperatively, in the best interest of the District and the people we serve. 

Thanks for your consideration,

Sabrina
 

The following two sources were liberally borrowed from: 

Leading a Nimble Organization  |  Susan Spaddock  |  October 31, 2014

Management Be Nimble  |  Adam Bryant  |  January 4, 2014