Minutes of June 16, 2011 Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the MetroCenter Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, California at 1:17 p.m.
2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Adams, Apodaca, Bates, Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Gioia, Groom, Jordan Hallinan, Lundstrom, McGrath, Nelson (represented by Alternate Ranchod), Sartipi, Shirakawa (represented by Alternate Carruthers), Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), and Wagenknecht. Legislative member William C. Taylor was also present.
Not Present were: Association of Bay Area Governments (Addiego), Secretary of Resources (Baird), Sonoma County (Brown), San Francisco County (Chiu), Department of Finance (Finn), State Lands Commission (Fossum), Speaker of the Assembly (Gibbs), U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (Hicks), Governor Appointee’s (Goldzband & Moy), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Ziegler).
3. Public Comment Period. Chair Randolph called for public comment on subjects that were not on the agenda.Comments would be restricted to three minutes per speaker. No public comment was made.
4. Approval of Minutes of the June 2, 2011 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of June 2, 2011.
Chair Randolph noted that the date on the Minutes read May 19th and it should have been June 2nd.
MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved, seconded by Commissioner Adams, to approve the June 2, 2011 Minutes.The motion carried by voice vote with Commissioners Sartipi and Lundstrom abstaining.
5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph reported on the following:
a. Harbor Safety Committee. At our last meeting I informed you that Joan Lundstrom decided to resign as BCDC’s representative on the San Francisco Bay Region Harbor Safety Committee effective July 1st and the Commission concurred in my appointment of Commissioner Jim McGrath to replace Joan on the Harbor Safety Committee.
In recognition of Joan’s initiatives to improve navigation safety as a nationally recognized leader, the U.S. Coast Guard has presented Joan with a national award for her distinguished service on the Harbor Safety Committee. I am sure the Commission joins me in congratulating Joan for her service to the region and the state.
b. Next BCDC Meeting. Our next meeting will be three weeks from today on July 7th. At that meeting, which will be held at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, we will take up the following items:
(1)We will vote on proposed amendments of the San Francisco Bay Plan and the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan to revise a priority use designation in the Collinsville area of Solano County. We held a public hearing on this proposal at our last meeting.
(2)We will hold a public hearing and vote on whether to initiate the process of considering amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to accommodate the America’s Cup yacht races.
(3)We will hold a public hearing and vote on whether to initiate the process of considering amendments to the San Francisco Bay Plan dealing with Hunter’s Point in San Francisco.
(4)We will consider making appointments to our Citizens’ Advisory Committee and Science and Technical Advisory Committee.
(5)We will receive a briefing on the status of our climate change communications strategy.
(6)We will consider a status report on the progress we are making in carrying out our strategic plan.
c. Ex-Parte Communications. 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 Adams mentioned that they would be swearing in their new County Supervisor Kathrin Sears and she has expressed a great interest in being a member of BCDC since her parents were a part of the Save the Bay movement.
She has requested to be the Commissioner and Commissioner Adams to be the Alternate.
Chair Randolph then moved on to the Report of the Executive Director.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Travis reported:
a. Budget. Yesterday the Legislature passed the budget and it had money in it for BCDC. This morning Governor Brown vetoed the budget. So we don’t know what our budget will be for next year.
b. America’s Cup. As you know, the facilities needed to accommodate the America’s Cup races will require permits from BCDC and amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, as well as approvals from a number of other government agencies. To expedite the regulatory process, the City and County of San Francisco is underwriting regulatory agencies’ costs of undertaking CEQA analyses, making any plan revisions and processing permit applications.
However, Governor Brown has issued an Executive Order establishing a hiring freeze. Therefore, we can’t fill existing vacant staff positions or hire additional staff to handle America’s Cup workload even if the City of San Francisco provides the funding to pay for these staff resources.
Fortunately, two of our partner organizations have agreed to loan staff to us so we can fulfill our legal obligations without expending state funds or hiring additional state employees.
The Aquatic Services Center is using $49,000 provided by San Francisco to provide us with assistance in dealing with the planning issues raised by the America’s Cup races.And the Association of Bay Area Governments is using $153,000 and change provided by the Port of San Francisco to provide us with assistance in dealing with regulatory issues. To ensure that this assistance is consistent with our legal obligations, the staff working on America’s Cup matters will be housed in our office and work under our supervision.
We’re indeed fortunate that we have trusted partners we can turn to for assistance in this very difficult fiscal climate in a manner that is consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order.
c.Caltrans Bicycle Trail. In 1994, the Commission issued a permit to Caltrans for a variety of freeway structures in the so-called “MacArthur Maze” at the eastern end of the Bay Bridge toll plaza.
A condition in this permit required the construction of a 2.5-mile long pedestrian and bicycle trail extension from the Bay Trail in Emeryville and Oakland to the western end of the toll plaza. This trail was supposed to be completed by 2006.
However, the work had to be delayed to accommodate the construction of the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge and the trail design had to be changed so the trail can be integrated with the plans for a pedestrian and bike lane on the new span and a new park at the Oakland touchdown of the bridge.
As a result, the required trail won’t be opened until 2014. To compensate for the eighth year delay in building the required public access, Caltrans has agreed to upgrade the quality of the required trail and provide additional public access amenities at a cost of $4.3 million.
We administratively amended Caltrans’ permit to authorize a time extension and to encompass these additional improvements.
7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Travis stated: On June 3 we sent you a listing of administrative matters our staff is prepared to act upon.Bob Batha is available to respond to any questions you may have about the matters on the listing. Thank you.
8. Briefing on Wayfinding Improvements. Mr. McCrea presented the following:
The Commission’s Strategic Plan includes an objective in which you asked the staff to report on improving wayfinding to Bay access areas from major thoroughfares.
I’m going to tell you a little about how we’ve handled this in the past and what we might do in the future.
The fact is, when you’re on the shoreline, it’s pretty easy to find your way.You just follow the shoreline.
The public access and wayfinding that we’re talking about today is from major thoroughfares and sometimes finding your way TO the shoreline is intuitive and legible.
In more remote locations we have done a pretty good job of informing people about how to get to shoreline access through the use of directional signage.
And when people get to the shoreline, signs are provided that tell folks what they are looking at.Or about history and what was there before.
But after 40 years of requiring signs, we looked around the Bay and realized that we’d managed to provide a hodgepodge of signage approaches and sign types.
There were signs with outdated graphics, there were handmade signs, there were signs on top of signs, there are other agency’s signs along the shoreline and we had public access signs that were not very inviting. And we even had signs that made it look like BCDC has its own trails built by school children.
And so six years ago, with funding from NOAA, we created our own Public Access Signage Guidelines.The guidelines debuted a new design for our public shore sign.
The document provides a bit of technical information, such as mounting heights, it provides guidance on informational signs and it gives examples of shoreline regulatory signage which communicate behavior rules and expectations.
And the document provides some guidance on wayfinding to communicate directions for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.
These wayfinding signs direct the public to the shoreline, public parking and other waterfront facilities such as restrooms, fishing piers and boat docks.
But here’s the thing, as part of the BCDC permit process, you regularly require public shore signage, including wayfinding signs. But these signs are usually installed on-site because the wayfinding improvements are usually implemented by the BCDC permittee.Rarely, are signs required off site.
Now sometimes, we require permittees to work “outside of their property lines.”
Occasionally, especially with larger projects, permittees are required to develop a “comprehensive sign program” and work with local governments to place shoreline signs along major thoroughfares near the project site, outside of BCDC’s jurisdiction.
But this requires a coordinated approach and usually we can only require that the permittees “work in good faith” or “use their best efforts” to install off-site signs because the signs need to be placed on someone else’s property.
Therefore, BCDC’s permit requirements alone, don’t go far enough to improve wayfinding from major thoroughfares.
The reality is, the larger regional issue of shoreline wayfinding from major thoroughfares is difficult to implement and manage.
It’s different than say, the efforts of the East Bay Regional Park District which owns and manages their own parks.
Compare that with our efforts.Although we and our partners have had some success directing people to the shoreline from major roadways; to date, our efforts have been somewhat ad hoc and we haven’t approached the problem comprehensively.
What is needed is a Coordinated Regional Approach done in collaboration with many other regional stakeholders.The project’s purpose and need would be clarified, the project scope defined and user groups identified.
Some questions would need to be answered:Who are we trying to direct to the shoreline, motorists, bicyclists, transit users, everyone?
And with hundreds of miles of shoreline and shoreline access areas, how do we prioritize the destinations?
And of course, there are practical matters.The signs must be located in a way that provides adequate wayfinding in a region already filled with lots of roadway information.And someone must install the signs and maintain them.
That’s why we think we should also explore other methods of promoting wayfinding.
Because everything I’ve discussed so far relies on improving wayfinding through roadway signage. And that tried-and-true approach will require significant staff time to be done properly at a regional scale.
There are other ways to deal with the issue.For example, The Coastal Conservancy’s Bay Shoreline Access Guide has been around for 14 years and it will soon be updated.
It’s a comprehensive, user-friendly, illustrated guide that covers the entire 400-mile Bay Trail. The Guide describes over 170 different shoreline sites as well as trails that branch off the Bay Trail and lead inland.
Also, for many years, ABAG’s Bay Trail Project has provided maps that depict the alignment of the Bay Trail within the surrounding urban context.
Moving away from traditional maps, another solution could involve our website and social media efforts.
On the BCDC website home page or on a BCDC Facebook page we could showcase one public access area each week with photos and directions to the Bay.
And potentially, we could work with current online services.For example, Google Maps and Google Earth allow a person to easily locate even the most remote shoreline areas like Middle Harbor Shoreline Park located deep within the Port of Oakland’s Shipping Terminal.
Online mapping is an exciting opportunity to improve wayfinding to the Bay.Because online technology can help the public understand that, while the shoreline may feel far away from major roadways, oftentimes it’s not.
It’s often very close.And others have already found their way there and are sharing what they know such as by uploading photos and videos of shoreline access.
So, in summary, improving wayfinding to the Bay should include various approaches.
It should include on-site and off-site signage provided by permittees, it should include roadway signage planned through a coordinated approach with regional stakeholders, it should include hard copy books and maps and it should take advantage of the Internet and all that social media can provide.
Chair Randolph asked if anyone from the public wanted to address this item and he received no response.
Commissioner McGrath commented:I salute the idea of more modern ways but as a bicyclist of much of the Bay Trail I don’t think anything will ever replace wayfinding signs.
Those of us on foot and pedals really need a sign every place the Trail branches.
Mr. McCrea responded:I think you’re absolutely right Commissioner.Nothing will ever replace the signage that we have to lead people to their destinations.
Commissioner Gioia commented:There will be opportunities through online mechanisms to increase awareness about the location of the shoreline.
I do think that signs respectfully done still make sense especially in communities where there is not a whole lot of use of Internet usage.
I think there’s an opportunity to think of these signs not just as wayfaring signs but signs that educate the public about something else that is happening along the Bay that’s part of the Bay Trail and part of the walk.
Mr. McCrea stated: Staff agrees that this is a regional issue and we should continue to coordinate our efforts with the variety of regional agencies that we’re currently working with.
Commissioner Adams commented:I do think that there is a use for modern technology but I also agree that there still are pockets of people that don’t have the technology and would still benefit greatly from signage along the Trail.
If you don’t have signs along the legal trails then you run into the problem of social trails and other access such as habitats that you don’t want people tromping through.
Commissioner Jordan Hallinan:Nobody knows the trails better than the local municipalities and I applaud the idea of coordinating with the local governments.
In the future most people will have access to smart technologies that can be used to navigate the trails.It would be ridiculous to spend a lot of money doing this now when technology is giving the ability to navigate very quickly.
Commissioner Ranchod commented:I agree that regional collaboration is great but given the resources constraints everywhere that seems unlikely to happen quickly.
We should take advantage of online guidance as well as providing actual signage on the Trail.We might try a pilot program and come back in a year or so and see where it would be most advantageous to spend resources on this.
Chair Randolph added:How do you deal with expressed concern by part of the community that is not living by the Bay about access to the shoreline and signage that will take people through their communities?
Mr. McCrea responded:Again, it’s the local government that knows best where user groups are coming from and going to.Planners need to have a clear understanding of the site and the signage plans have to clearly depict a procession from street to street.
Commissioner Gioia stated:You indicated that there is no one agency that has taken this on in a comprehensive way.It would make sense for BCDC and ABAG to be those two entities because ABAG is most involved with the Bay Trail and there is a lot of overlap with public access issues.
Executive Director Travis commented:I think that your direction on this is very helpful, especially the idea of a pilot project.
One of the things that I hope we have made clear is that this is one of those areas where BCDC has a number of tools.
We can’t achieve all of our goals through our regulatory process and we have to rely on the kind of partnerships that were described earlier today.
9. Briefing on Restoration of Salt Ponds. Bob Batha made the following presentation: While a few salt ponds had been restored earlier, most efforts to restore salt ponds began in the last eight years with the acquisition of all of the north Bay salt ponds and much of the south Bay ponds.
Research and monitoring have begun to yield information on the questions and issues surrounding salt pond restoration.
I’m going to highlight some of the information being developed that will inform future restoration efforts.
Many species rely on salt ponds and there has been an increasing awareness that managing some of the ponds for wildlife would provide important ecological benefits.
But with over 90% of the Bay’s wetlands lost to diking and filling, there is a recognition that for the Bay to be healthy, we must recover some of these lost natural habitats.
Returning salt ponds to tidal action would also improve the functioning of Bay natural resources.
Last year I talked about some of the important considerations in planning wetland restoration.
Over the last 10 years there has been a marked decline in sediment in the water column.
Sufficient sediment to achieve appropriate elevations to support marsh vegetation is a key factor affecting marsh colonization.
As the length of time that an area is inundated is a key determinant of what plants live where, good water circulation is necessary for healthy marsh functions.
The greatest species diversity in marshes is found in and along channels and a healthy marsh has lots of them.
And finally, the soils of a marsh restoration site must be soft enough to allow root penetration and sufficiently rich in nutrients to promote plant growth.
In 1994, the State of California acquired approximately 9,450 acres comprising the north Bay salt ponds.In 2003, the State of California and United States government acquired 15,100 acres of south Bay salt ponds.
In the south Bay, the very first actions were implementation of the Initial Stewardship Plan intended to maintain water quality and existing ecological functions and not make salt.
Recently, work was completed on creating a managed pond out of SF-2, changing this dry, barren pond next to the western approach to the Dumbarton Bridge to a managed pond, note the 2 different sized and shaped islands that have been created in an effort to determine optimum island configurations for future restoration efforts. This spring, less than 7 months after water was introduced to the site, 44 American avocet nests have been counted on the island and 3 snowy plover nests have been found on the southern portion of the site. The island ponds were breached in March 2006. Pond A6, a fully tidal pond, was breached last year. Pond A8, a pond that will be managed as much as possible like a tidal wetland but available for flood control, was opened last week. And work on Ponds A16 and A17 is expected to be completed this fall.
One of the earliest projects was to open up a former salt evaporator pond that had not been connected to the Bay in decades. The Island ponds were highly saline with a 6-inch thick gypsum crust and looked like a moonscape.
Eden Landing just south of the eastern approach of the San Mateo Bridge is being restored by the Department of Fish and Game.
There are two major components to Phase 1 improvements at Eden Landing – a tidal marsh on 630 acres expected to be open this fall and reconfigured managed ponds on 230 acres, currently in design.
The North Bay ponds were acquired in 1994.
After their purchase, as plans for their restoration proceeded, DF&G struggled to maintain water quality and keep the ponds from making salt. Some of the ponds dried intermittently.
It was largely this experience that informed the initial stewardship plan for the south Bay ponds.
One of the biggest concerns in returning salt ponds to tidal action is the potential impacts on water quality.
There has been concern that hypersaline water in the ponds can threaten or kill biota in the receiving water or that the release of water from the ponds will cause dramatic shifts in temperature, turbidity or pH.
To date, by limiting the release of pond water through water control structures or undersized breaches there has been apparently little effect on the water quality in stations near the release point.
And there has been a strong biological response to opening the ponds. Within 48 hours of breaching the Napa Plant site a harbor seal was observed within the ponds as were gulls, shorebirds and salmonids.
There have been different water quality concerns for managed ponds.Managed ponds provide significant benefits to birds.Bird numbers tend to be much higher in well managed ponds than are found in tidal marshes.
But the shallow water and long residence time of water in salt ponds promote algal growth. Former salt ponds greatly resemble the US Department of Energy’s recommendations for designing an algae farm.
In the warm months algae respiration and die off severely deplete dissolved oxygen leading to fish kills.
Another concern facing salt pond restoration is whether sufficient sediment is present to bring these often subsided lands to elevations suitable for supporting marsh vegetation. As I noted earlier, the sediment in the water column of the Bay has diminished over the last 10 years.To date, we haven’t seen such effects expressed in restored ponds.
As you move away from the breach, there is less sediment in the water and less sediment is deposited.
There has been fear that increasing the tidal prism by breaching salt ponds would cause erosion and scour in areas adjacent to the breach.
To date, there is some evidence that this may occur but the restoration projects undertaken thus far have shown negligible impacts on adjoining areas.
Another concern has been how restoring ponds may affect existing infrastructure.The biggest focus has been on how restoring ponds may affect levees protecting inland areas.
Salt pond levees have not been designed for flood protection and the material they are made of, usually material dredged from the ponds, does not meet levee standards.
The Corps is currently conducting a feasibility study for federal funding of flood risk management projects. One interesting note is that levees constructed with a very flat 10 to 1 slope as part of restoring the Napa Plant site have been holding up well while levees with steeper slopes are experiencing scour.
Another infrastructure challenge is high transmission towers that crisscross the ponds.Some restoration projects have employed site modifications to direct water flow away from the existing borrow ditches and into historic channels.
What has been the biotic response to our restoration efforts?This slide illustrates the evolution of marsh on a former salt pond (Island Pond A21) in a very short time.
Channels are not only essential in providing good water circulation throughout the marsh but they are also the places with the greatest species diversity in a tidal marsh.
The story of bird use of restored ponds is a little more complicated.
Managing the ponds for wildlife has increased bird use of the ponds many fold from when they were used exclusively for salt production.
These are still early days and we have much to learn about what makes ponds attractive to birds.
So, by applying what we’ve learned from early restoration efforts we have been remarkably successful in meeting many of the challenges of restoring salt ponds.
There remain many questions that we still need to answer before we will have successfully restored the ponds to a mosaic of habitats that will enrich our bay area.
Chair Randolph inquired:Which salt ponds have been designated to be opened to tidal action and which managed as ponds, or are they all planned for complete restoration?
Mr. Batha replied:Currently they are proposing about 50/50 ratio of managed versus tidal marsh restoration.The hope is that we will be able to provide sufficient habitat for birds that rely on more saline habitats on less acreage than occupied by salt ponds.
It’s quite likely that we are going to end up with more than 50% of the ponds restored to tidal wetlands.
There’s some thinking that the ultimate target may be about 90 percent restored tidal wetlands and about 10 percent managed ponds because tidal areas are easier to restore and maintain.
Commissioner Carruthers added:Relative to cost with the Federal budget dangling as it is, what’s the outlook for undertaking future projects restoring the salt ponds?
Mr. Batha answered:As of now we’re about 30 percent complete in terms of the work that they’re hoping to do to the ponds.Later this fall BCDC will get an application from the Department of Fish and Game for completing the restoration of the North Bay Ponds.
Funding is a major limiting factor.Clearly these projects are going to require quite a bit of money.
Chair Randolph stated:The Bay Area Council of Economic Institute will be releasing a study next month on options for wetlands restoration finance around the region.
The most universal number I have seen regarding the cost of these projects is about 1.4 billion which came from Save the Bay.
Commissioner Gioia added:The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority has been exploring the possibility of some type of tax measure in the region next year that would raise some amount of money locally to leverage for larger federal dollars.
10. Commission Briefing on the use of Social Media as a Public Communication Tool. Ms. Jaime Michaels made the following presentation:The Commission has asked the staff to look into the issue of how social media might be used as a part of BCDC’s work.
You asked the staff to define the purpose, study the feasibility and recommend possible uses of social media in BCDC’s public communication process.
Most people are familiar with the logos. Essentiallysocial media are web-based applications that allow people to create and communicate content in the form of words, images and audio casts.
BCDC could create an informational page on Facebook which wouldn’t allow for interaction with people but they could see who BCDC is and what we do.
Twitter is very different.It is a micro-blog.It’s for posting messages that are no longer than 140 characters.They are meant to lead you to other kinds of information. You can also post images on Twitter.
YouTube is for uploading videos, viewing videos and commenting on videos.It’s not a conversational tool per se.
One thing that all of these share in common is that the host can manage these sites.These media are almost as popular as the Internet and mobile phone uses.
Just 11 years ago 360 million people used the Internet and today that number is two billion.And 750 million people in the year 2000 used mobile phones.Today that number is five billion.
In terms of social media 650 million people are Facebook users and Facebook started seven years ago.
There are 200 million Twitter users and Twitter was launched five years ago.
State agencies are not required to use or to create sites.
Although we are encouraged to stay engaged with the public we haven’t been given a direction insofar as social media is concerned.
Despite the lack of clear direction, state agencies are creating social websites.
The Commission is still mostly relying on traditional forms of media for communicating with the public about what we do.
BCDC did create a social media site to post images about the King Tide event.This site was very effective and popular.The Press did a broadcast with the Commission staff.
The social media could help BCDC in a multitude of ways. The King Tide experience showed us that this is certainly a feasible as a tool.
In our conversations with other state agencies we have been informed that their experiences with social media sites have been very positive.
We learned that creating sites is not the difficult part but the hard part is the management and maintenance phase.
One of the important issues in setting up a site is making sure that the site is secure.
People are now expecting state agencies to be accessible through social media sites.
We know that social media site usage is increasing and we also know that it can be a very effective way of communicating with the public.
As far as staffing is concerned we recommend that the Commission use social media sites for discrete events like the King Tide Event particularly for the purpose of promoting events and educating people about them.
The staff should consider developing a more agency-specific plan to help us define what our goals might be involved in developing social media sites.
We, as a staff, should keep abreast of what’s coming out of the California Technology Agency.
And lastly, we should keep in touch with the other agencies that are using social media sites as a way to understand where we need to go next.
Chair Randolph asked if anybody from the public had any comments regarding this item.He received no response from the audience.
Commissioner Adams commented:It is interesting, even in our own county, how many people have their own social media sites.It gets a little harder to see how everybody can be following the same policies especially from agency to agency. The management issue is very important if you want the site to remain relevant and current.
Commissioner Carruthers commented:As far as developing a plan is concerned I would add that identifying the resources that would be necessary to maintain the site is critical.If you don’t have the resources to keep the site current and maintained then it can go dead.
A lot of other agencies that have done this do not have an obligation to maintain an informational program in the conventional media.I don’t think that the social media website can be used as a substitute for the conventional media.I see this as a great supplement but not as a substitute.
Another issue is, among those social media platforms, what is the most useful one for us?
Chair Randolph asked:I wonder what the differences would look like between Facebook versus an ordinary website?Is it a difference of who would go to each?
Ms. Michaels replied:I don’t think that the demographics would be so different.I think it’s more that the Facebook site would be more current and it would be more interactive and possibly more fun.
Commissioner Jordan Hallinan commented:I’m thinking a lot about, what would I ever want Tweeted to me?From an outdoor recreation point of view; current conditions and situations in state parks, that is something I would want to be Tweeted about.
Commissioner Lundstrom commented:BCDC is a small state agency with limited resources.I think the recommendations made are very prudent.Learning from other agencies is a very good tool for us to use.
Commissioner McGrath added:I have a serious concern about social media as compared to email and websites.
One is that part of the drive on this is instant communication and that sometimes trumps what actually is happening.The limited amount of communication allowed in these social media compare unfavorably to an email question or communication.
You really need to be very clear on what your communication purpose is.Is it quick or is it accurate because they’re not always compatible.
BCDC staff puts a lot of effort into a website that is pretty accurate but even then we’ll get comments that have to do with an old, outdated document.
Accuracy is very important and knowing what you know and what you don’t know.I think we need to be cautious about trying to be too “hip” because of the inherent difficulties you have in trying to achieve accuracy with quickness.
Commissioner Wagenknecht commented:I liked Commissioner Carruthers statement about seeing what this would cost to maintain any of these things.
Legislative member William C. Taylor commented:I’m an anti-social media guy.I think they don’t really communicate very much or very useful information.However, I don’t have a problem with utilizing technology.
Commissioner Apodaca commented:I work in public relations in my full time job and a lot of our communications have been around our policies and what types of policies you’re going to have regarding social media.
Social media is important, especially for the younger generation because they want to know what’s happening now.
Commissioner Halsted commented:I think we should think about using some form of quick communication for emergency, time-sensitive messages.
11. New Business. No new business was discussed.
12. Old Business. No old business was discussed.
13. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner McGrath the meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of July 7, 2011
R. SEAN RANDOLPH, Chair