Dispute over Redwood City harbor

The commission’s executive director, however, said his staff has worked on the issue for six years now and Sanders has not been willing to come to an agreement even after lengthy discussions.

Sanders is meeting with the commission’s enforcement committee to review a cease and desist and civil penalty order for the second time Thursday after officials amended an order approved at the committee’s Nov. 16 meeting. It is a step he feels is one of a long line of punitive measures the commission has taken since he obtained the last permit required to build and operate his harbor from it in 2003. Sanders said the necessary permit came after 10 years of attempting to meet the agency’s requirements and that he has spent the last 15 years since the permit was granted fielding what he described as unfair allegations lodged by commission staff that he was in violation of the plans approved in the permit.

“When I started this project I thought I would be the best example of what BCDC’s ideals would be,” he said. “After 10 years of delay and 15 years on the project, for the next 15 years, I have been crawling through broken glass trying to keep BCDC satisfied.”

A former U.S. Naval officer and lifelong environmentalist, Sanders said he expected the project to build a harbor expanding public access to the Bay, promote safe boating and protect the Bay environment to take some three years when he first came up with the idea in 1988. He said for much of the 10 years since he opened the gates of the marina in 2008, he has been fending off accusations from the agency’s staff alleging the harbor blocks public access to the waterfront, has not received approval to build improvements like new docks and has disrupted to the habitat of waterbirds roosting in nearby salt ponds.

Sanders said none of the allegations have merit, adding that paths and fencing he has installed have charted a path for pedestrians through the marina and to the adjacent Pacific Shores office complex at 1700 Seaport Blvd. He said signs painted on spaces in the parking lot indicate the spots are publicly accessible, and that he hasn’t installed signs per recommendations from state and federal wildlife agencies that he not create places for predatory birds to rest and hunt for protected species, such as the salt marsh harvest mouse. He noted plans to build a dock where equipment for water sports could be rented were included in original plans submitted to the agency, and alleges it altered the plans just prior to his signing the permit.

Sanders said other charges the agency filed against him, such as a requirement to place buoys in a specific part of the slough bordering the harbor as navigational devices, come into conflict with buoy placement standards imposed by other agencies, such the U.S. Coast Guard.

Back-and-forth

However, BCDC Executive Director Larry Goldzband said the agency regularly works with others involved with overseeing the Bay’s resources to include their recommendations into the permits the commission issues. He said the back-and-forth between his agency and Sanders is now six years in the making, with enforcement staff meeting with Sanders multiple times since 2011, when Goldzband’s predecessor contacted Sanders about permit compliance issues observed at a May 17, 2010, site visit.

Goldzband said the many hours staff logged in working with Sanders to bring the harbor into compliance resulted in five proposed permit amendments and deferred deadlines for public access improvements. Goldzband said it was typical for staff to attempt to resolve alleged violations with permit holders before taking more serious courses of action. He noted Sanders’ unwillingness to come to an agreement with staff and commission officials by the time a cease and desist and civil penalty order came before the enforcement committee at its November meeting has proved mystifying.

“It is totally atypical that a permittee would have five lengthy discussions with enforcement staff, comes to what is essentially thought to be a reasonable conclusion and then decide at the end, ‘no I’m not going forward,’” he said.

Even though the enforcement committee approved the order and offered to waive half of the proposed fines, or $256,500, if Sanders would comply with the orders within a specified timeframe, Goldzband said Sanders ended talks of modifications to the order. He said the amended order up for review Thursday is aimed at addressing some of the concerns Sanders raised.

But for Sanders, the cost of complying with a cease and desist and civil penalty order filled with allegations he doesn’t believe are grounded in evidence would both put him out of business and don’t sit well with him. He added that carrying out the actions required by the order, such as restoration of a roosting place for shorebirds to BCDC’s specifications, in the short timeframes provided by the document would also prove next to impossible.

He said his original plans for the harbor included a recreational marina, boat yards where owners could make repairs on their vessels and eventually a boardwalk lined with restaurants and coffee shops and connecting those using the harbor with other shoreline paths, such as the one lining the Pacific Shores Center.

But Sanders said his plans have been on hold for years as the agency has periodically lodged alleged violations against his business.

Frustration on both sides

Dave Pine, president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and also a member of the BCDC, acknowledged the frustration on both sides of the issue. He said it was unfortunate the parties have not been able to work out their differences after considerable efforts to resolve a large sum of minor alleged violations.

Pine added several members of the boating community have contacted him in recent weeks with concerns about how the harbor might sustain a financial blow like the fines and improvements required by the order.

“It’s BCDC’s job to provide public access and provide these resources,” he said. “But I think we’re all in agreement that this is an important community asset and the operation itself is not really in dispute.”

Pine was looking to Thursday’s meeting and the commission’s review of the order, which he said is slated for February, to shed light on Sanders’ willingness to resolve the remaining violations or explain why the required changes are not needed.

After years of defending himself against the allegations, Sanders said he’s prepared to lose the harbor if the upcoming hearings or potential and pending lawsuits do not go in his favor. He said the daily fines worth some $6,000 if he doesn’t comply with the order would quickly put an end to his venture, a harbor in which he’s invested the last 30 years and any savings he earned as the retired CEO of Pinnacle Systems, a public broadcast company, and after serving in engineering and management roles at Ampex Corporation.

Reflecting on the many years that have passed as he acquired the Bayfront land, excavated and created new shoreline to environmental standards and installed a boater-friendly marina, the Redwood City resident said he became more and more determined over the years to pursue the project despite the setbacks he faced to be able to make the marina available to boaters and Bay Area residents where water activities are increasingly limited.

“This was sort of a passion for me,” he said. “It was a labor of love.”

anna@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102