Minutes of May 5, 2011 Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Ferry Building, Second Floor in San Francisco, California at 1:10 p.m.
2. Roll Call. Present were Chair Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted (represented by Alternate Chappell), Commissioners, Adams, Addiego, Apodaca (represented by Alternate Fergusson), Baird (represented by Alternate Vierra), Bates Chan, Chiu, Fossum, Gibbs, Gioia, Groom, Jordan Hallinan, McGrath, Nelson (represented by Alternate Ranchod), Sartipi, Shirakawa (represented by Alternate Carruthers), Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Wagenknnecht and Ziegler. Legislative member William C. Taylor was also present.
Not Present were: Sonoma County (Brown), Department of Finance (Finn), Governors Appointee’s (Goldzband & Moy), U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (Hicks) and Association of Bay Area Governments (Lundstrom).
3. Public Comment Period. Chair Randolph called for public comment on subjects that were not on the agenda. There were no speakers, so Chair Randolph moved on to Item four, Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Minutes of the April 21, 2011 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of April 21, 2011.
MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Adams, to approve the April 21, 2011 Minutes. The motion carried by voice vote with Chair Randolph and Commissioners Sartipi and Ranchod abstaining.
5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph reported on the following:
a. New Commissioner. There has been one new appointment to the Commission since our last meeting.
John A. Perez, the Speaker of the California Assembly has confirmed the appointment of Malik Looper as the alternate to Assembly member Tom Ammiano as a non-voting ex-officio member of the Commission.
I am sure the Commission joins me in welcoming Mr. Looper to BCDC.
b. Appointments. The late Commissioner Charles McGlashan ably represented BCDC on our Enforcement Committee. Wilma Chan is willing to fill this vacancy. I would like a motion and a second to approve this matter.
MOTION: Commissioner McGrath moved, seconded by Commissioner Carruthers, to have Ms. Chan serve on the Enforcement Committee. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions or opposition.
c. Next BCDC Meeting. Our next meeting will be two weeks from today on May 19th. At that meeting, which will be held at the Metro Center in Oakland, we will devote the entire meeting to a workshop on the latest draft language for amending the Bay Plan to address climate change.
We’ve asked both the environmental community and the business community to each select three members to hold a conversation with the Commission on the draft language. The goal of the workshop is to allow the Commissioners to directly engage with each other and key stakeholders on the draft language. General public comments will be welcomed at the end of the workshop.
d. Ex-Parte Communications. That completes my report. In case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a report on any written or oral ex-parte communications, I invite Commissioners who have engaged in any such communications to report on them at this point.
Commissioner Vierra reported that she had a conversation with David Lewis of Save the Bay regarding the Bay Plan Amendments.
Commissioner Fossum stated that he has spoken to both the developer and the city and representatives from Parks and Redevelopment Agency regarding the Candlestick/Hunter’s Point transactions.
In matters dealing with Pier 27 he reported that he had conversations in the past on this.
Commissioner Fergusson reported that the Council in Menlo Park has had ongoing conversations with members of Facebook discussing the Bay land area and adjoining lands.
Chair Randolph then moved on to the Report of the Executive Director.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Travis reported:
a. Travel Restrictions. Last week Governor Brown issued an executive order imposing additional restrictions of staff travel, both in-state and out-of-state.
Fortunately, most of our travel is limited to the Bay Area and is essential to fulfilling our mandated responsibilities so we’ll be able to continue to carry out site inspections, check on enforcement problems and attend important meetings.
We’ll use teleconferencing as much as we can and generally, we won’t send more than one staff member to a meeting. Other than occasional travel to Sacramento to attend mandatory meetings, we won’t be traveling anywhere else in California.
Out-of-state travel will be limited to the trips required by our federal grants and our obligations under contracts. In these cases, each individual trip will have to be approved by the Governor's Office.
We’ve been advised that travel paid for by someone else, especially if the purpose of the travel is to make a presentation, is unlikely to be approved by the Governor’s Office.
Therefore, I’ve encouraged staff who receive invitations for hosted travel to either decline the invitation or go on vacation while traveling. I’ll be taking my own advice next week when I speak at the national convention of the American Institute of Architects in New Orleans and the following week when I speak at the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance in New York City. While I’m on vacation from May 11th through 17th Steve Goldbeck will be serving as Acting Executive Director.
b. Intern: We have a new intern who will begin working in our enforcement program next week. His name is Adrien Baudrimont and he received a Bachelor of Geography and a Master of Urban Planning from the University of Paris Sorbonne. He has worked in urban planning and sustainable development in both France and Belgium and is also a professional jazz guitar and trumpet player.
c. Reports. I want to call to your attention four documents our staff recently sent to you.
The first is dated April 22nd and deals with a proposed amendment of the San Francisco Bay Plan and Suisun Marsh Protection Plan to revise a priority use designation in the Collinsville area of Solano County.
We will hold a public hearing on this amendment on June 2nd, but we had to send the document out well in advance of the hearing to meet legal requirements. Please hold onto the report and bring it with you to our June 2nd meeting.
The other three documents are all dated April 29th. Two of them, dealing with Delta issues and regional sediment management fulfill objectives in our strategic plan. The final document is the schedule for completing the Bay Plan climate change amendments.
Let me know if you have questions on any of the documents.
That does complete my report for today.
7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Travis stated that there were no listings on administrative matters.
8. Public Hearing and Vote on Initiating a Plan Amendment Process. Chair Randolph announced: This item is a public hearing and vote on whether to initiate the process of considering a modification of a map designation in the San Francisco Bay Plan dealing with the Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. Linda Scourtis will present the staff report on this item.
Joe LaClair, said he is standing in for Ms. Scourtis, who manages the Commission’s Oil Spill Program and is participating in an oil spill drill today.
The City and County of San Francisco applied for a Bay Plan amendment to modify the park priority use designation at Candlestick to facilitate realization of the Redevelopment Agency’s plan for a combined Hunter’s Point and Candlestick Point project.
The Redevelopment Agency and California State Parks along with the State Lands Commission recently agreed to a reconfiguration of some portions of Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. A Bay Plan map change is necessary to reflect the revised boundary.
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the descriptive notice and set the public hearing date for consideration of the proposed amendment for June 16, 2011 in Oakland at the MetroCenter.
This concludes my presentation.
Chair Randolph then opened the public hearing regarding this matter. There were no public speakers commenting on this item.
Chair Randolph asked for a motion and a second to close the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Carruthers moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Wagenknecht. The motion passed unanimously by a voice vote.
Chair Randolph then asked if any Commissioners had questions or comments regarding this matter.
Commissioner Fossum commented: I want everyone to know that the Governor actually signed the agreement yesterday and this will provide for the transfer of lands between the parties.
Commissioner McGrath added: There is not very much information on this. All we’re doing today is to set this for a hearing so we can hear about the public interest issues associated with this at the right time. Correct?
Chair Randolph responded: That’s correct.
Commissioner Fergusson stated: I’m wondering if it’s relevant in the public notice to state the acreages involved in the interest of full disclosure. I mean this is an unusual swap in that the area that is being given up is quite a bit larger than the area that is being appended.
Commissioner Fossum replied: When I first saw this I asked the same question of my staff. It’s actually a phased transaction. There will be significant lands added to the Parks lands in the next phases.
This is limited to the southern-most area and there is quite bit of additional lands that State Parks will have in that inlet as well as in Yosemite Slough and around there.
I think the net increase will be fairly significant in that area compared to what’s being given up.
Chief Planner LaClair added: The staff focused its description of the amendment to the area that is designated by the Commission in its Bay Plan.
Commissioner Fossum is referring to some land that was acquired over the years by the State Parks through lease and/or ownership along the north side of Candlestick Point that has never been integrated into the park.
It’s been used mainly for parking for Forty-Niner’s games and we’re going to be taking this up in more detail in the staff report and the public hearing, but the transaction provided $50 million to the State Parks Department to improve and maintain over time the entirety of Candlestick Point.
Commissioner McGrath replied: I’d like to see a pretty good hearing on this.
Chief Planner LaClair responded: We will provide more detail in our staff report about the overall Park Proposal over the long haul.
Chair Randolph asked for a motion and a second on the staff recommendation.
MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved for approval of the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Chiu. The motion passed unanimously (21-0-0) by a show of hands.
9. Briefing on San Francisco Waterfront Planning. Chair Randolph announced that this would be a briefing on issues that have to be addressed on the San Francisco Waterfront to accommodate the America’s Cup races and Lindy Lowe will give the staff briefing.
Ms. Lowe presented the following: This is a briefing on the status of planning and projects along the San Francisco Waterfront and an update on the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan and how the plan is serving as a vehicle for balancing development of the waterfront with public benefits along the waterfront.
During the past 10 years the San Francisco Waterfront has been developed to encourage public access and activity.
Some projects being proposed will continue to shape and change the Waterfront and they should be considered comprehensively and changes along the waterfront should continue to balance and integrate the public and commercial realms.
Prior to the 2000 amendment the Bay Plan and the Special Area Plan required that each project along the San Francisco Waterfront that involved substantially rehabilitating a pier had to remove or provide public access on approximately 50 percent of that pier or another pier within the same geographic vicinity.
This requirement was difficult and often led to unreliable results.
The Special Area Plan has only been amended once since 2000 to allow the retention of a portion of non-historic fill between Pier 15 and Pier 17.
Save the Bay and San Francisco Tomorrow expressed a concern that the amendment was being done for a specific project and that a project-by-project approach to these areas could be an unreliable approach to securing public benefits.
Approximately 30 people representing a broad range of organizations were interviewed regarding this process.
One perspective that became apparent was that it would be preferable for the Port and BCDC to assume a comprehensive view to planning on the waterfront.
It was recognized that there are distinct sub-areas along the waterfront and each has its own character, resources, needs, challenges and opportunities.
Those interviewed stated concerns that the Port’s role as an enterprise agency and a keeper of public resources can create an inherent conflict, which makes a balanced approach to planning difficult and places too great a focus on development proposals.
Some interviewees felt that BCDC was too strict in its interpretation of laws and others felt it was too lenient.
When asked about the development of a cruise ship terminal at Pier 27, interviewees understood the need to limit public access for safety and security purposes.
However, many felt that the berthing of cruise ships would change the character and the use of the plaza by the public and it would no longer be the same public space that was envisioned by the Plan.
Another common theme among interviewees was a desire to see a planning approach that included both sides of the Embarcadero not just the waterfront side.
Some felt that the Port’s and BCDC’s approach to the issue of historic resources is on a case-by-case basis with a concomitant result of favoring sacrificing historic resources if and when it is beneficial to development, fill removal or when it is economically difficult to preserve, adapt or reuse the historic resources.
Finally, many identified the need to find other ways to fund and maintain public spaces and other public benefits.
Joe LaClair continued the presentation: Four open water basins are designated in the Special Area Plan to improve use to the bay, to increase the connection between public access and the Bay and to develop recreational uses in the basin.
Two of the four open water basins are contemplated for both short and long-term use in relation to the America’s Cup Project.
If the changes contemplated were implemented three of the four open water basins would be eliminated and the benefits associated with them greatly diminished or eliminated.
A request for an amendment for the America’s Cup Project will likely be submitted within the next month.
Review and comment on the environmental report regarding these changes will provide another opportunity for the public to comment on the America’s Cup.
Chair Randolph then called for public comment regarding this item.
Ms. Ruth Gravanis commented: I wanted to make you aware of a new organization called the, America’s Cup Environmental Council which is a group of organizations that is devoted to making this a successful event and as environmentally sustainable as possible.
One concern is that we want to ensure that temporary event structures are respectful of the Bay and the shoreline.
We want to make sure that the long-term uses associated with the America’s Cup event are identified and especially impacts on historic resources.
We’re concerned about aesthetics and the impacts on open waters as well as the shoreline.
We want to be able to limit advertising and billboards on the shoreline.
We will be commenting extensively on transportation and circulation.
We want to make sure that the America’s Cup doesn’t unduly prevent ongoing public access to the water and the shoreline.
We want to make sure that we protect the endangered species but also the habitat in general.
Mr. Brad Benson commented: I’m representing the Port of San Francisco. There is a fine balance of public benefits that is being contemplated regarding these changes.
Chair Randolph then called for any comments or questions from the Commissioners present.
Executive Director Travis stated: You have gotten a hint today of the dilemmas we’re going to face with the America’s Cup.
The dilemma we face is that there are requests for amendments of plans, changes in policies dealing with this temporary event.
If the American team wins then they keep coming back over and over again. If they lose or if they win and decide to go someplace else the next time the arrangement with the City is that the Oracle people get some long-term development rights to the waterfront.
It’s like allowing a temporary use of a public park but you’re going to make some significant changes in the infrastructure that only make sense if you’ve already decided that you’re going to close the park and use it for something else.
Our challenge is to be making those decisions that allow the America’s Cup races to take place but somehow having a true, transparent process that involves all the stakeholders in making these big public policy decisions on long-term effects for any number of areas.
Commissioner Adams commented: I was wondering if you have a copy of the tabulated summaries of where the different interviewees were.
Ms. Lowe responded: We do have summaries of the interviews.
Commissioner Adams added: I didn’t get any of those maps and I couldn’t see detail on the screen and it would be nice to have that in front of me so I could orient myself to what we are talking about.
Is there a way, Trav, to separate the approvals for the short-term uses from the long-term development?
Ms. Lowe replied: We have developed a bifurcated approach which would be to take up the temporary uses of the two open water basins. However, once the America’s Cup people dredge they have long-term development rights under the America’s Cup Host and Venue Agreement that was negotiated with the City and County of San Francisco.
Executive Director Travis added: If we can allow the dredging and it doesn’t give rights to the America’s Cup people we would be interested in pursuing that. So if we can bifurcate these issues you would be making relatively easy decisions on relatively minor interim uses for the America’s Cup and everything else would be analyzed later. If we have to analyze the long term projects now it will take a much longer period of time.
We’re trying to establish a parallel track.
Commissioner Adams asked: How does this fit into the conversation about whether we continue on a piecemeal approach to planning or we look at the comprehensive amendment for the 2000 Plan.
Ms. Lowe responded: The real challenge for us was that while we were conducting the interviews the America’s Cup came to San Francisco.
So the approach we would have taken had we had time to take it would have been different then the approach we’re currently going to take on Pier 27 for the cruise ship terminal.
That doesn’t mean that we’re not looking comprehensively at the waterfront because some of the impacts at Pier 27, the Port staff and BCDC staff agree that you can’t resolve those impacts only on that site.
We will be looking at other parts of the waterfront to make up for some of the losses to open space, open water and public access along the waterfront areas affected by these changes.
Commissioner Adams added: What I would suggest is that we not lose that opportunity to step back and look at these changes comprehensively once all the America’s Cup activities have died down and gone away.
Commissioner Adams commented: I had the benefit of watching Save the Bay of KQED and it stated that on a case-by-case basis they are generally in favor of not sacrificing historic resources.
And I’m wondering if they are talking about pre-settler resources, pre-1906 resources or what they’re referring to.
So when you’re talking about historic resources you should define what kinds you’re referring to.
Ms. Lowe replied: For the purposes of this it is designated historic resources so it’s usually not those pre-pioneer days.
Commissioner Gioia commented: I wanted to indicate that when we passed the resolution supporting the America’s Cup it wasn’t a Carte Blanche to do whatever the City of San Francisco and the developer wanted to do to make the America’s Cup successful.
It was that we wanted to support it but at the same time there are going to be these challenges. It would be really useful for the Commission for you to highlight the very specific decision points and paths for these changes.
Commissioner Carruthers added: I want to second Commissioner Gioia’s concerns. The overview of what really is involved here is far beyond whatever I imagined.
I pictured this to be an ephemeral thing; a lot of fun, some headaches and then we’d get back to natural life.
But that seems to be, not the case. Now things can be temporary and then become permanent and be wonderful. The chances of things turning out great are just as good as the chances of things turning out bad.
As we go through this the staff needs to make it very clear what the impacts and implications and long-term consequences of the decisions we’ll be making.
I had no idea that there would be long-term commitments to the support organization for revenue over a long period of time.
Commissioner Gioia added: Given that there may be an intense period of staff involvement, have we explored the issue of any fee or funding to address short-term staffing needs that may be required.
Executive Director Travis replied: It’s already done.
Commissioner Carruthers commented: The interviews yielded some material that I think is terrifically important. One is the need to plan for both sides of the Embarcadero and I don’t know what the institutional arrangement will be necessary to accomplish that.
And then the need for other sources of funding is really important. Did the interview process indicate any potential sources for funding?
Ms. Lowe replied: I don’t recall that the interviewees did.
Ms. Lowe added: When the Port staff and BCDC staff looked at the outcomes of the interviews Port staff expressed a concern that BCDC’s jurisdiction doesn’t go to the other side of the Embarcadero.
We want to be supportive of developing both sides of the Embarcadero and this enhances access to the Bay.
Executive Director Travis stated: The Planning Department and the Port have worked together on a plan and a planning process that integrates these two issues.
Just as those two departments have come together we think that BCDC should say, if we’re achieving something for the waterfront you get credit for it no matter what side of the street it’s on.
When we adopted this plan in 2000 that reflected where we were as a city and as a state agency a decade ago. The future is what happens to you when you’re planning something else.
People keep coming up with wonderful things that we hadn’t planned that achieve the objectives that we had all along which was to make the San Francisco Waterfront reconnect the City with the Bay and make it a more dramatic, dynamic thing.
We need to have the flexibility to allow the plans to accommodate other great ideas that we hadn’t thought of.
Commissioner Wagenknecht commented: How much authority do we have over the historic resources in this area?
Executive Director Travis answered: I think it’s important to understand that this entire waterfront is a national historic district. So, it is all protected by the Secretary of the Interior.
It is what you do with those areas that aren’t protected as historic resources is what we can play around with.
Commissioner Chiu commented: As a host supervisor for this project I agree for the need for speed in our decisions and we need to make sure that the environmental concerns raised by stakeholders are dealt with in an accelerated way.
We know that there’s likelihood that the decisions we make right now will be permanent for a number of years.
And we could also be making decisions for a short period of time that will lead to longer-term consequences.
Could you lay out for us what you expect BCDC decision points to be over the next couple of months?
Ms. Lowe answered: The Port will be submitting a proposal to amend the Special Area Plan for the open water basin amendments for the short term uses.
We expect that that will come to the Commission in June and we will have a recommendation based on what the Port submits to us.
On the permitting side there will be design and review board meetings but I’m not sure they will be bringing you briefings or updates.
Mr. Brad McCrea added: The staff is working routinely with the Port staff, the City staff and the event authority representatives on an ongoing basis as they define what the project is.
We’re also hosting inter-agency regulatory meetings so that all the different resource agencies and regulatory agencies can get in the same room to make sure that all these issues are being shared so that we can move forward expeditiously.
Ms. Lowe stated: The open water basin issue is the key issue that BCDC has identified; not the temporary uses but the permanent uses issue.
Executive Director Travis added: Let us put our heads together with the Port and the City staff and we’ll give you a schedule of all the key points that BCDC will be interacting on this over the next year.
Commissioner Bates commented: I just want to go on record in saying that I want us to look at the long-term impacts.
Commissioner Gioia stated: Done right this could increase the public’s connection with the Bay. How do we also look at where there may be opportunities to improve public access around the Bay in other areas.
Ms. Lowe mentioned: That is something that is being discussed in our inter-agency meetings and there is a component of that in the America’s Cup People Plan.
Commissioner McGrath commented: When we get done with this process we’re probably going to authorize the initiation of the planning process for the cruise ship terminal.
We have two very good examples of how planning can be dynamic and they are the restoration of the Ferry building and the Exploratorium.
I have no trouble with a planning process that relocates a cruise terminal. I think that’s very different than something like a marina in the open water basins associated with the America’s Cup that may be able to be done in other places.
There is a very clear standard in what will go forward which is that the public benefits associated with what we’re going to do clearly meet or exceed those currently required by the plan.
Making commitments on a cruise terminal doesn’t really trouble me much in the long term because it is a waterfront use. A planning effort that goes in that direction is going in the right direction.
Commissioner Carruthers commented: Relative to the potential marinas the immediate thing that comes to mind is the need for parking.
Does this happen on the other side of the Embarcadero? What is the City doing in regards to this?
Ms. Lowe replied: There are a number of challenges with locating marinas particularly in the area in front of Rincon Park.
Commissioner Carruthers then added: I wonder if the America’s Cup organization is contacting the cities that border around the Bay that have potential viewing sites so that they’re alerted to that and can prepare for it.
Ms. Lowe replied: The National Park Service and the State Parks have a lot of lands and they’re very integrated into the process. The conversation is also beginning with the cities in Marin County.
Executive Director Travis commented: It is important to note that the entire America’s Cup event will be run exclusively within the City and County of San Francisco, all within the city boundaries.
Chair Randolph stated: Item number 10 on our agenda is going to be a public hearing and a vote on whether to initiate the process of considering an amendment for the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to accommodate an international cruise ship terminal on Pier 27.
10. Public Hearing and Vote on Initiating a Plan Amendment Process. Ms. Lowe made the following presentation: The Port of San Francisco has applied to amend the Special Area Plan in order to locate an international cruise terminal at Pier 27 and retain the Pier 23 shed for future development opportunities.
The proposal will require changes to the Special Area Plan regarding use at Pier 27, the required removal of a portion of the Pier 23 shed, the open water basin adjacent to Pier 27, the public plaza at Pier 27 and public access along the apron of the pier.
The Special Area Plan requires two significant public plazas and four open water basins. The cruise terminal at Pier 27 and the retention of the shed at Pier 23 will have several impacts on the Plaza and the open water basin including, the need to close a portion of the Plaza prior to and during the period that a cruise ship is at Pier 27, the views of the Bay that will be impeded by cruise ships and the retention of a portion of the Pier 23 shed and the minimized connection between the Plaza and the Bay due to the need to frequently close the pier edge and the installation of facilities for a cruise terminal berth.
The specifics of alternative benefits will be developed by the Port of San Francisco staff working with stakeholders and BCDC staff and will be the focus of a public hearing on October 6, 2011.
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached descriptive notice to initiate the process of considering a possible amendment to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan concerning the open water basin and public plaza policies and the implementation requirements related to the development of Pier 27 and the removal of the Pier 23 shed and to schedule a public hearing for October 6, 2011 to consider the proposed amendment.
Chair Randolph then opened the public hearing regarding this matter.
Ms. Ruth Gravanis commented: One of the members of the America’s Cup Environmental Council is the Turtle Island Restoration Network and would like to read some of a letter they have given me.
Shore side power at the cruise terminal must be required and mitigation mandated for the two to four years if the public shore side installation is disassembled during the America’s Cup.
The proposal is that this be removed for the America’s Cup. This will contribute to degraded air quality around the Port exposing residents, sailors and visitors to increased air emissions while ships are in port.
In October of 2010 unveiled shore side power for cruise ships at Pier 27 in advance of state regulation requiring such installations.
When plugged in the harmful diesel emissions from cruise ships idling their engines in port is reduced to zero.
The construction of a new cruise ship terminal at Pier 27 requires a distinct and comprehensive overview that looks at the short, medium and long-term impacts of not only the facility but of cruise ship traffic itself.
Mitigation needs to be mandated independently of any other event, project or activity. Much of my concern about this arises from my personal experience participating in the San Francisco Cruise Ship Terminal Environmental Advisory Committee over a period of years as related to the previously proposed terminal at Piers 30, 32.
The Port of San Francisco adopted a number of measures applicable to Piers 30, 32 including no dumping of waste water or ballast water requirements for use of shore side power and cleaner fuels while in port, public reporting and monitoring of discharges and fuel quality by the cruise ships.
The same mitigations adopted for Piers 30, 32 must be required at the new cruise ship terminal at Pier 27.
Mr. David Osgood commented: I am with the Rincon Center Tenant’s Association. I would like to remind you that as you consider these dilemmas if ten years from now are you going to be heroes or just one of those officials who got the thumbs up signal from across the room and voted for something.
The process at Rincon Park was appalling and it just seems like this organization is always talking about decreasing access.
You’re starting the process to approve inconsistencies that are going to allow a decrease in visual and physical access to the Bay at that cruise terminal; and for what?
Chair Randolph welcomed a motion to close the public hearing on this matter.
MOTION: Commissioner Carruthers moved, seconded by Commissioner Vierra. The motion passed by a voice vote with no abstentions or opposition.
Commissioner Vierra asked: Lindy you said that the Port is going to propose a new open water basin but the location has not yet been determined, is that correct?
Ms. Lowe responded: The location of that open water basin has not been determined and that will be the process that we will go through in the next four months.
Chair Randolph queried: What is the definition of an open water basin?
Ms. Lowe replied: I will use the Pier 27 open water basin as an example. The reason why it’s no longer going to serve as the open water basin that it was envisioned to be is because there will be cruise ships berthing at that location.
Due to closures for safety and security, we can no longer get the public access that our plaza is required in the plan. The relationship between the Bay and the public plaza, including the opportunity for those with hand held boats to access the Bay here, will need to be eliminated.
Views will be compromised by the retention of the Pier 23 shed as well as when cruise ships are in.
For these reasons we determined that the function of an open water basin could not be maintained.
Commissioner Adams asked: Why is the shed being continued?
Ms. Lowe answered: There are two reasons why the Port is retaining the shed; one is that it was designated when the waterfront was designated as a historic district.
Additionally it’s in very good structural condition and so the Port would like to use it for a development opportunity as yet to be determined.
Commissioner McGrath commented: I would hope for a public hearing there would be ample visual impact analysis because I’m far less troubled with a ship being in the way because you can tell us how many ship calls there are in a year and how much time this will be.
That’s a little different than permanently keeping a building. I’d like to see this issue pretty well briefed for us.
Commissioner Bates stated: The shore power is absolutely critical so I hope that these comments made by the public are actually followed up on.
Ms. Lowe replied: The shore power will be part of the cruise terminal when it comes back. It had to be removed for the America’s Cup Project and it will be stored and then it will be put back on Pier 27 when it is used for the cruise ship terminal.
Commissioner Carruthers added: I have some skepticism about some historical buildings. The shed may be quite functional but just because it’s been there a long time doesn’t impress me; it’s just a shed.
Chair Randolph asked for a motion and a second on the staff recommendation.
MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved, seconded by Commissioner Chiu to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion passed unanimously (21-0-0) by a show of hands with no abstentions or objections.
11. New Business. There was no new business.
12. Old Business. There was no old business.
13. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner McGrath, seconded by Commissioner Chiu, the meeting adjourned at 2:37 p.m.
Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of May 19, 2011
R. SEAN RANDOLPH, Chair