May 1, 2008 Commission Meeting Minutes
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, California at 1:08 p.m.
2. Roll Call. Present were Chair Sean Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Baird (represented by Alternate Potter), Bates (represented by Alternate Balico), Bourgart, Gordon, Jordan Hallinan, Hicks, Kniss (represented by Alternate Carruthers), Lai-Bitker, Lundstrom, Maxwell, McGlashan, McGrath, Nelson, Peskin, Wagenknecht, and Wieckowski (represented by Alternate Drekmeier). Charles Taylor, Legislative member was also in attendance
Not Present were: Sonoma County (Brown), Department of Finance (Finn), Speaker of the Assembly (Gibbs), Contra Costa County (Gioia), Governors Appointee’s (Goldzband and Moy), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (D. Smith), Solano County (Silva), and State Lands Commission (Thayer).
3. Public Comment Period. There were no public comments.
4. Approval of Minutes of April 3, 2008 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion to adopt the minutes of April 3, 2008.
MOTION: Commissioner Lai-Bitker moved, seconded by Vice Chair Haslted to approve the April 3, 2008 minutes. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph reported on the following items:
a. Next BCDC Meeting. It will not be necessary to hold a Commission meeting on May 15th or on June 5th. Therefore, the next meeting will be on June 19, 2008. It will be held at the Metro Center in Oakland. At that meeting the following matters will be taken up:
(1) A briefing from Dr. Andrew Gunther on the latest scientific research on climate change which has been rescheduled to allow Dr. Gunther adequate time for his presentation.
(2) A Public Hearing and vote will be held on two permit applications -- one regarding a residential development and a new school in Redwood City; the second on a ferry terminal in South San Francisco.
(3) A Public Hearing will be held on revising Board permit application fees.
(4) A report will be given on implementing the strategic plan.
b. Oral Ex parte Communications. Commissioner McGrath reported that there was a San Francisco Board Sailors Association Board meeting last week and he did advise President Peter Thorner that he might want to look at the staff report for today’s agenda.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Travis provided the following report:
a. Personnel. Long-time staff member Ellen Sampson, staff counsel, will retire this fall after 20 years with BCDC. The Board will miss her dedication, her wisdom, her experience and her wise counsel.
Erin Bomkamp, who joined the Permit staff last year, has decided to return to her native southern California and the consulting firm she previously worked for. Her last day is tomorrow. To replace Erin, Max Delaney will be moving from the Dredging Program to Permits.
Jaime Michaels, principal permit analyst, will be out of the office for some time on medical leave. Ming Yeung will be filling in for Jaime and Michelle Levenson, a former permit analyst, will be working part-time to backfill for Ming Yeung.
Another intern has been added to the staff -- Sarah Burns, who has a BS in Earth Science from Boston University. She is updating the GIS data used in the sea level rise planning efforts, as well as in the BAYRAT web tool.
A new unpaid legal intern, Nick Drekar, will join the staff on May 19th and work through the summer. He is a 2nd year student in the Masters Program of Environmental Law at the Vermont Law School.
b. Legislation. AB 2094, the measure the Commission sponsored to give BCDC the authority to address climate change in their planning and to become a voting member of the Regional Joint Policy Committee, was passed by the Assembly Local Government Committee some weeks ago. It was subsequently passed by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
However, it -- along with all bills that might have fiscal impact -- was put in the suspense file by the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Because this measure doesn’t actually call for any new appropriations the Commission expects that the bill will be passed by the Appropriations Committee in a few weeks and then be considered by the full Assembly.
On April 10, the ABAG Administrative Committee took up the issue of whether ABAG should condition its support of AB 2094 on adding an amendment to require BCDC to appoint only locally elected officials as BCDC’s representatives to the Joint Policy Committee. The ABAG Committee reached no conclusions, instead referring the matter back to ABAG’s Legislative and Governmental Organization Committee, which will take up the matter at its next meeting, May 15th.
Tomorrow’s mailing will provide a letter between ABAG’s President and Chair Randolph on this issue. ABAG has invited the Commission to participate in their next discussion on the matter. It will be held at the Metro Center in Oakland on May 15th at 3:30 p.m.
AB 2954 was also passed by the Assembly Natural Resources and Local Government Committees. The bill will establish a new San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority, which will be empowered to raise and distribute funds for restoration, enhancement, protection and enjoyment of Bay wetlands and wildlife habitats.
At the last Commission meeting members voted to support this measure if two amendments were made to the bill: (1) to require that the project be consistent with the Commission’s Coastal Management Project for the Bay; and (2) to allow BCDC to appoint two of the four locally elected officials who will serve on the board of the new Authority.
Save the Bay, the bill’s sponsor, agreed to the first amendment but not the second. Therefore, the bill will move ahead without Commission support.
On April 16 the Commission, ABAG, the San Francisco Natural Estuary and Research Reserve and others hosted a workshop to make local governments more aware of the challenges posted by sea level rise and to begin working with local governments and others on strategies to deal with this challenge. The session was very well attended and well received. Joe LaClair, BCDC staff, was the architect who had the idea and put the workshop together. He and the other staff members who assisted him can certainly be proud of their achievement.
Executive Director Travis will be on vacation next week; Caitlin Sweeney will serve as Acting Executive Director while he is away.
7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters. There were no administrative matters.
8. Public Hearing and Possible Vote on Permit Application No. 3-07 from the City and County of San Francisco, Recreation and Parks Department, to Maintenance Dredge the West Basin and Entrance Channel and Create a Sand Trap to Reduce Sediment Accumulation Over a Ten-Year Period at the San Francisco Marina. Brenda Goeden provided background on the Application:
At the March 6 meeting she presented the project summary. A number of questions and issues were raised at the March 6th meeting regarding the sand trap portion of the project, which resulted in the Commission keeping the Public Hearing open and postponing a vote on the Project.
Concerns raised focused on the potential impacts of dredging a large sand trap adjacent to the marina’s jetty on adjacent beaches, including Last Chance Beach, which has developed since the creation of the jetty; as well as potential impacts to sediment transport in subtitled habitats. Concerns did not focus on the maintenance dredging of the Marina’s West Basin or entrance channel. Since that meeting the applicant and staff have developed additional information for the Commission and the applicant has revised the configuration and size of the sand trap.
On April 18th a revised Project Summary incorporating those provisions was mailed to the Commission. Attached to the Summary was a letter from Moffett and Nichol, the applicant’s consultant, proposing project revisions and answering questions raised at the previous meeting. Both documents specifically address the sand trap portion of the Project and do not cover the non-controversial maintenance dredging of the entrance channel and marina basin. To provide background on the Commission’s dredging policies a brief description of the Long-Term Management Strategy For The Placement Of Dredging Material In The San Francisco Bay Region (LTMS) follows.
The LTMS Program seeks to maintain navigational channels in San Francisco Bay, including recreational marinas, in an economically and environmentally sound manner, as well as reducing in-bay disposal by increasing beneficial re-use of the dredge sediment.
The Dredge Material Management Office reviews projects for chemical, biological and physical suitability of the dredge sediment for proposed disposal options as well as managing the in-bay disposal sites. The environmental work windows determined work periods for dredging projects based on potential impacts to endangered species in that area.
The revised Project Summary includes information provided by the applicant’s consultant as well as recommendations and knowledge of technical experts that staff consulted regarding this project and its potential impacts. These experts included the United States Geological Survey, Philip Williams and Associates, NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, the Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Boating and Waterways.
These technical experts agreed that the revised sand trap could reduce sand shoaling in the marina’s entrance channel and not impact the adjacent beach. However, there was general agreement that without additional fieldwork and monitoring there was no assurance that the desired results would be achieved.
The technical experts also agreed that the sand trap, adjacent beaches, subtidal areas and entrance channel should be carefully and regularly monitored to assess potential impacts and to further understand the system, and to develop a better understanding of potential connections between the longshore sediment transport and the shoaling problem in the marina’s entrance channel.
As revised, the applicant proposes a ten-year permit to maintenance dredge 210,000 cubic yards of sediment in the marina’s west basin and entrance channel with disposal of the fine grain sediment at the state and federally authorized Alcatraz disposal site.
In addition, the applicant proposes to create and maintain a 1.88 acre sand trap adjacent to the marina’s jetty tip by dredging up to 25,000 cubic yards of sand each year, up to a total of 250,000 cubic yards, with the sale of the sand for construction materials. The sand would be placed at either an authorized upland facility or outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The sand trap is designed to capture sand that would otherwise enter the marina’s entrance channel.
Staff believes the project raises the following issues: (a) whether the proposed project would be consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act and the San Francisco Bay Plan policies on dredging, water quality, recreation and subtitle areas; and (b) whether the creation of the proposed sand trap would minimize maintenance dredging and sufficiently minimize potential impacts to the subtidal areas and adjacent beaches.
Mary Hobson, a project manager with the Recreation and Parks Department, introduced the permit request for the dredging of the marina yacht harbor. She provided some background on the facility:
It is a recreational facility owned by the City and County of San Francisco, and owned and operated by the Recreation and Parks Department. It is entirely devoted to recreational purposes and houses only small recreational vessels. The facility was gifted to the City by the state and is entirely funded through the revenues generated by the boaters.
Frank Filice, Department of Public Works, gave a powerpoint presentation on the permit application for the marina. Highlights included:
This is the third permit application for the maintenance dredging and development of a sand trap adjacent to the outer jetty. In 1994 an amendment to the BCDC permit was authorized for a 30,000 cubic yard excavation of sand to create a sand trap. In 1999 a permit application was filed and issued in 2000 for a much larger program. In the 2000-2005 period 47,000 yards of sand were dredged from the authorized sand trap in the outer jetty area.
Dredging in San Francisco Marina predates many regulatory agencies and activities in San Francisco Bay. The sand shoaling issue is longstanding. The entrance channel and outer jetty shoaling has accelerated in the past years and has created a navigational hazard adjacent to the entrance to the marina.
(A series of photographs was shown, dating from 1972 to March 2008, depicting some of the changed conditions in the marina and the outer jetty.)
Significant shoaling has occurred in that time. Many docks have been lost because of the accelerated shoaling between the Golden Gate Yacht Club and out towards the entrance of the marina.
Impacts at the outer shoal, known as Last Chance Beach, needs to be addressed. The Department feels that potential impacts from this project at Crissy Field and the Aquatic Park have been addressed or dismissed.
From 1994 to 2005 a total of 65,000 cubic yards was removed from the entrance channel and a total of 77,000 cubic yards from the outer jetty area.
A series of bathymetric surveys have been taken and submitted, as well as sand deposition conceptual models that identified activities that have taken place.
There has been a significant reduction in the square footage of the sand trap dredge program from the 2000 permit with 450,000 square feet authorized. The sand trap area under the current proposal has been reduced to 78,500 square feet.
Reference material shows that, even with the activities completed through 2006, the contour lines of the beaches have moved out towards the Bay. Last Chance Beach appears to be growing at the rate of about two feet per year. If left unchecked, the Department fears this will begin to adversely affect navigation.
The Department supports the staff’s recommendation but has reservations about the benefits of the monitoring to determine impacts with the reality of a growing shoal that continues to build.
Dr. Dilip Trivedi, coastal engineer with Moffett and Nichol, followed with an additional powerpoint presentation. He explained that Moffett and Nichol has been working in the area for many years and has a familiarity with it. Dr. Trivedi compared four different locations around the jetty itself, based on three previous surveys, and discussed the amount of dredging previously done in the jetty area. He explained that there is a potential transfer process going on around the tip of the jetty despite the ongoing dredging.
He observed that the dogleg portion (the piece added on in the 1960’s) was likely designed to train, or direct, the sediment for deposition offshore into deeper water. However, the sand continues to move. Various surveys have been done but exact reasons for the continued deposition of sand in the area are still unknown.
Chair Randolph asked if Last Chance Beach was created artificially by the construction of the dogleg. Dr. Trivedi said that was correct. Chair Randolph further stated that there is an interest in maintaining the size of Last Chance Beach.
Commissioner Carruthers wondered if the dredging of sand, which appears to require continual work, could result in a revenue stream for the Department, as it looks like there will be a process of recurring dredging. Chair Randolph stated that yes that is a part of the goal, to find the least cost of doing maintenance dredging. Although the assumption is correct, the reality of the economics of the sand business is complex and uncertain.
Commissioner Carruthers noted that the suggestion was made that the Commission discuss determining a fixed baseline distance for the contours. How would this be done and how would such a contour be used in the long-term operation of the area?
Dr. Trivedi remarked that the beach continues to grow. And it is likely that no amount of dredging will stop the beach from growing. The City’s position was that the location of the sand trap be related to the existing position of the contours, the 2006 contours. However, if in 2008 or 2010 the beach is much farther out, then all we are doing is extending the dredge footprint out into the Bay, where possibly the efficiency of the sand trap is not as high.
Commissioner Carruthers asked if dredging could be done up to the point where it maintained the minus five foot depth. Would this be the contract that would be agreed to? Could that anything beyond that could be dredged, as long as that particular baseline contour was maintained? Dr. Trivedi responded that yes, this is correct for the area of the beach itself. However, this is a very difficult area to dredge (beyond the beach) because of the sea state surrounding it.
Commissioner Carruthers asked about the staff’s position on establishing a baseline for the dredging. Ms. Goeden stated that the staff doesn’t have a proposal for this dredging. There has been no CEQA review for such an action. In addition, there are subtidal policies state sandy shoals are a scarce resource in the Bay and should be protected. If this project was proposed, staff would need to do an CEQA analysis as well as other additional analyses.
Commissioner Carruthers then asked if it were conceivable that the Commission might approve the current recommendation, assuming that the City is agreeable to that, and then the minus five foot contour idea as a subsequent action? Ms. Goeden responded that they do have the ability to request an amendment to the permit.
Dr. Trivedi then showed two graphics of small studies Moffett and Nichol did for the City in 2000 examining primarily the wave activity in the marina but also included a preliminary sediment transport study. At that time they hypothesized the sediment movement, which he showed on the graphic.
The Hearing was then opened to public comment.
Mr. Bright Winn, Marina Harbor Association and Golden Gate Yacht Club (GGYC) member, commented that we are arguing about a beach (the so-called Last Chance Beach) that wasn’t supposed to be there in the first place and the only reason for keeping it is as a safety measure for a particular sporting group (wind surfers). Yet very few wind surfers end up on Last Chance Beach. When the beach wasn’t there ten years ago there were still plenty of wind surfers out there and they went up on the rocks safely, as they do all of the time, and they do it where the beach is now. Mr. Winn doesn’t see a need for an entire community, the sailing community, diverted because of the supposed safety of a single beach, which is not that great of a safety measure for the people that use it.
Mr. Marcus Young, GGYC’s Commodore, noted that for the last several years their docks have been under siege by sand. Sand has been intruding into their dock space at a terrific rate and nothing that the City has been able to do for the Club has alleviated that strain. To date about 200 square foot of dock space has been lost, at a cost of about $100,000, all based on the fact that a hole that used to capture sand is no longer there or maintained.
Part of the problem is also affecting one of the Club’s most important programs, a youth sailing program. Now, at a low tide, the dock used for the program is often several feet above the water, which makes them completely unusable. It also means the kids can’t get the boats into the water. As long as we delay the sand mining or dredging this program gets farther and farther away from being able to be maintained, simply because we can’t get the boats in the water in order to keep the program going.
Mr. Young stated that he was here to urge the Commission to push forward this permit so the Club can become whole again, as they were five years ago when they actually had water under their dock space.
Mr. Gordon Huseby, GGYC Vice Commodore, added that in February of 2006, because the sand seemed to come out of nowhere, he made a recommendation to the Club board that they proceed with emergency dredging. An emergency meeting was held to get that process started. Mr. Huseby thanked the various agencies, including the BCDC, Army Corps of Engineers and others, that worked very quickly to provide the Club with an emergency permit.
The hope at that time was that just enough dredging could be done to stay within the limit of 500 yards and stop the dock there from breaking up. They were able to pull together about $10,000, got a dredger lined up, obtained the required permits, and they were able to pull out to 500 yards. They hoped this dredging would preserve the docks until June, when the City comes in and does their regular dredging. That dredging did not happen, and the rest of the dock ended up breaking and they had to tear it out before it ended up as a navigational hazard.
Without the docks they are not really a full yacht club anymore, and it is impacting their ability to keep new members and get new members. So the Commission’s help on this will be greatly appreciated by everyone at the GGYC.
Mr. Larry White, Acting Harbormaster at San Francisco Marina, stressed that his concern is safety. He has seen many boats go out through the channel and is concerned that a person coming into the marina at the end of the spit (i.e. at the dogleg referenced earlier) without local knowledge will become grounded. Mr. White also wants good access into the harbor. He thanked the Commission for their time.
Mr. Jeffrey Amdahl, a Marine Pilot for the San Francisco Fire Department, stated that to effectively do their job with the fire boat they need a clear channel of approximately nine feet of water at mean low waters in order to go in and fight fires or to act as an affordable hydrant.
Mr. Mont McMillen, Finance Committee Chairman, GGYC, first suggested that, with respect to Last Chance Beach, it also represents what might be called “an attractive nuisance.” They see that, as the beach grows, more and more people go out the jetty and climb over the riprap down onto the beach. Anyone who has spent any time out there knows that the currents that swirl around there means there is a substantial risk of becoming embroiled in an unpleasant situation that might result in that person being swept out. So, it is not “user-friendly” from that standpoint, and it does attract people because it is growing.
Secondly, Mr. McMillen referenced the $100,000 the Club has lost to this point. The Club leases its facilities -- the land and improvements -- from Rec and Park and ultimately the City of San Francisco. Therefore, the $100,000 loss is ultimately a loss to the City. Until this situation is resolved those docks will continue to unusable and the amount of loss to the City, the ultimate impact to the balance sheet, will continue to grow.
Mr. Maurice Quillen, GGYC, strongly urged the BCDC Commissioners to approve the pending permit application. The sand intrusion seriously impacts the navigability of the channel and the safety of boaters trying to enter or exit the marina basin. Many boaters, including him, have inadvertently run aground on the newly formed shoal. The sandbar additionally poses a serious threat to navigation and a hazard in that large vessels have a difficult time passing each other as they enter and exit the marina.
He recalled a point when the City of San Francisco had serviceable berths adjacent to the jetty. The GGYC also had berths that were adjacent to those berths. With the inadequate level of dredging and the new formation of the shoal those berths have been destroyed.
In addition to jeopardizing the docks, the sand bar has also damaged many boats that have been inadvertently left at the dock in what appears to be adequate water. This type of damage is completely unnecessary.
More importantly, the reduction in dock space has severely impacted the Club’s youth sailing program. While it may be arguable that the dock damage and boat damage are really serious issues, he finds it reprehensible to limit use access to sailing and boating in the Bay. He therefore urges the Commission to vote yes on the permit application.
Mr. Rich Selph, recreational boater and GGYC member, added that, from his perspective, it appears that the rate of the shoaling is accelerated and has the potential of becoming insoluble. This may result in a point where a solution is much more difficult because it reduces the efficiency of the trap. He urges the approval of the permit.
Mr. Dick Robinson, member of the Board of the Saint Francis Yacht Club, added his club’s voice to the arguments already presented and urged the Commission to allow the sand dredging. He stated that the existence of the yacht clubs, the youth programs, and the harbor itself is ultimately in peril if the entrance is not taken care of.
Mr. Mike Farrell, recreational boater on the Bay for 37 years, expressed his concerns about safety in the entrance. The presence of the shoal is a severe navigational hazard. Since it is continually growing it presents a continuing problem. There is severe danger, especially for those not familiar with the area. He has personally grounded and he has seen other situations elsewhere where severe injury and loss of life have taken place. He doesn’t want to see that happen in his Bay.
Mr. Jack Maiszak of the Modern Sailing Academy also expressed his support for the permit. He stated that on many occasions they have sent boats over to the GGYC and the St. Francis Yacht Club for recreational purposes and he can’t do that anymore. The shoal is filling in too much and is too much of a hazard for the boats.
Mr. J.W. Hendricks, retired Corps of Engineers employee and sailor, delineated his experience with how jetties work. As a sailor, he and his wife have been sailing in and out of the harbor for over 30 years. The purpose of the jetty, as he understands it, is to provide a way to “jet” sand out into deeper water and prevent it from moving around the jetty as the result of wave action and then be transported inside the entrance. He is interested in a safe entrance channel. His interest is in carrying out maintenance dredging of the entrance channel in the marina. He knows that if the entire volume of the marina is dredged there will be tidal circulation, and a large enough tidal prism to reduce the shoaling inside of the marina. The better flushing and circulation inside the marina will reduce the frequency of required maintenance dredging.
His recommendation is to focus on the purpose of the marina, which is to provide safe navigation, a good place to moor your boat, and a nice recreational resource. Thus, he would suggest that the portion of the permit for dredging in the entrance channel and in the harbor be passed but not the section allowing the dredging out in the Bay for the sand trap theory/concept. He doesn’t think the environmental effects balance the risk or the economy of it. He asks that the channel be dredged in a common-sense way, which is if you dredge the channel you solve some of the interests of the yacht club mooring and also navigational interests. It’s not a way to make a buck, it’s a way to operate a marina effectively and efficiently.
Mr. Dominic Maionchi, a long-time marina resident, also expressed his support for the proposal as revised by the Park and Rec Department. He hopes that the scope of it has not been reduced to make it ineffective; i.e. that the reduction is not too drastic to render it ineffective. He reiterated his support for the permit.
Seeing no other speakers, Chair Randolph entertained a motion to close the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Bourgart moved to close the public hearing; seconded by Commissioner Lundstrom. Motion carried unanimously.
The Chair then entertained Commissioner comments:
Commissioner McGrath remarked that he felt this was the way the process is supposed to work. The Commission now has about ten times as much information before it on coastal processes. From his perspective, if you build a sand trap where information indicates that a shoaling is now occurring -- that is, off the tip of this jetty -- and if you build it in water deeper than 30 feet, there is very little transport sand that goes on in those depths. As long as the beach looks to be stable it shouldn’t propagate upstream, but it should be monitored. Those elements are all present in the revisions.
The portion of the sand trap that extended up coast into the area closest to the beach has been taken out; the sand trap as proposed -- in addition to the safe maintenance dredging of the harbor, which was never in question -- would trap about five years’ worth of sand and then be monitored for a period of years. After that time you might be willing to change it, but more information would be needed.
The suggested permit would approve the maintenance dredging within the harbor, which is definitely needed; and would have a responsible sand trap.
Commissioner Nelson asked staff about an undated letter from the EPA and a letter from the Park Service dated April 2nd regarding the project. He asked for staff’s response to the issues raised here and secondly whether some of the changes proposed in the permit have post-dated the letters and whether staff feels the issues raised here have been adequately addressed.
Ms. Goeden stated that both notices have been in response to the Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice regarding the project and the Public Notice described the previous sand trap, which is the larger one that included the upside down “L” along the adjacent Last Chance Beach.
She believes the National Park Service letter had a number of concerns that were the same as those raised by the Commission and the EPA. The one thing they asked for beyond what the Commission had discussed was the ability to coordinate with the City on the monitoring and that is something the City is willing to do. So the concerns of the National Park Service and EPA have been satisfied. The EPA and the National Park Service both have copies of the recommendation.
It is yet to be seen what will happen in the Army Corps process. The Corps has been provided the revised sand trap proposal (she included the Corps as an interested party and they have received all of the information that interested parties received) and they did not comment on the revisions, so we assume their issues have been alleviated.
Commissioner Balico stated that he liked the permit application. His concerns were addressed and he thinks this is worth trying. Also, it is a safety issue.
Mr. Filice stated that they have not received the Army Corps letter or the EPA letter, but in general terms they have coordinated with the parties involved for all monitoring. He stated that as long as the intent of the permit monitoring generated here can be met they are fine with that. They will coordinate with staff and change any dates as necessary.
Chair Randolph asked for staff recommendation. Ms. Goeden stated that staff recommends approval of the maintenance dredging of the San Francisco Marina’s west basin and entrance channel and the creation and maintenance of a sand trap adjacent to the tip of the marina’s jetty.
The staff recommendation contains special conditions that require the permittee to take a variety of measures in order to minimize and assess the impacts of this project. These include, but are not limited to, providing a water quality certificate from the Water Board for each dredging episode; providing a dredging plan of pre-and post-dredge surveys and requests per episode approval for both the maintenance dredging of the marina and the sand trap; monitoring the area immediately up coast and down coast of the sand trap and adjacent beaches and entrance channel to assess potential impacts; requiring sediment that is unsuitable for in-Bay disposal to be disposed of at an upland location; disposing of all sediment consistent with the LTMS Management Plan; limiting dredging to the environmental windows work group for this area or seeking individual consultation with NOAA Fisheries or the Department of Fish and Game; and providing a mechanism to address changes in policy regarding the endangered green sturgeon.
The staff would like to make the following changes to the recommendation (the changes are contained in today’s packet on pages 2, 3, 5, and 6 and are underlined) which provide the ability to -- based on the results of the monitoring, and if the sand trap fills up quickly, do additional dredging annually rather than every three years in the sediment trap.
Commissioner McGrath commented that it looks like the historic record indicates that maintenance dredging totals about 13,000 cubic yards per year. While he has no objection to allowing a more effective trap to be dredged, if it’s not affecting the beach, he also thinks that if they are going to fill in 78,000 cubic yards in a year or two they’ve got a change that might cause some concern. So at least the staff should let the Commission know of changes in circumstances. He then reiterated that he had no objections to the actual changes recommended.
Commissioner Lai-Bitker asked about the safety issue identified earlier at the tip of the jetty. She wanted to inquire as to whether signs had been posted there. Ms. Goeden stated that that has not been required in the past but could certainly be achieved. The Harbor Master said he would look into placing a sign at Last Chance Beach.
MOTION: Commissioner Balico moved, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted to approve the staff’s recommendation of Permit Application No. 3-07.
VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 17-0-0 with Commissioners Potter, Balico, Bourgart, Gordon, Jordan Hallinan, Carruthers, Lai-Bitker, Lundstrom, Maxwell, McGlashan, McGrath, Nelson, Peskin, Wagenknecht, Drekmeier, Vice Chair Halsted and Chair Randolph voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstensions.
9. Consideration of Strategic Plan Status Report. Executive Director Travis stated that, as previously mentioned, four staff positions have been eliminated as of the beginning of the next fiscal year. Layoffs have been avoided by moving staff from general fund positions to special fund activities.
This is beginning to have some ramifications in the strategic plan. There are three objectives where staff suggests delaying the completion because staff has been redirected. They also recommend removal of one objective because the Coastal Conservancy has received the funding and they will be able to carry that activity out and there is no reason for Commission staff to duplicate it. He asked for a motion to approve changing the three deadlines and to remove the one objective from the plan.
MOTION: Commissioner Lundstrom moved; seconded by Commissioner Lai-Bitker to approve the changes. The motion carried unanimously.
10. New Business. There was no new business.
11. Old Business. There was no old business.
12. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Bourgart, seconded by Commissioner McGlashan, the meeting adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of June 19, 2008
R. SEAN RANDOLPH, Chair