Minutes of January 19, 2012 Commission Meeting

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the MetroCenter Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA at 1:10 p.m.

2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Randolph and Vice Chair Halsted (represented by Alternate Chappell) and Commissioners Addiego, Apodaca, Bates, Chiu, Fossum (Represented by Alternate Kato), Gibbs, Goldzband, Groom (represented by Alternate Pine), Hicks, McGrath, Moy, Nelson, Sartipi (represented by Alternate Richards), Sears, Vierra, Wagenknecht and Ziegler.

Chair Randolph announced that a quorum was present.

Not present were Commissioners: Alquist (Senate), Ammiano (Assembly), Brown (Sonoma County), Chan (Alameda), Finn (Finance), Gioia (Contra Costa), Jordan Hallinan (Governor), Shirakawa (Santa Clara) and Spering (Solano).

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.

Chair Randolph acknowledged one public speaker.

Mr. Jim Haussener addressed the Commission: Mr. Haussener commented on the Bay Area Plan meeting he attended in Dublin. He stated that he was concerned about the abilities of the four agencies involved in this process.

He mentioned that current material had not been posted to their website and he didn’t understand why.

Mr. Haussener wanted to encourage each individual Commissioner to be involved in the process.

4. Approval of Minutes of the December 1, 2011 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of December 1, 2011.

Motion: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved, seconded by Commissioner Sears, to approve the December 1, 2011 Minutes. The motion carried by voice vote with Commissioner Moy abstaining.

5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph reported on the following:

a. New Commissioners. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers has appointed Laurie Monarres to serve as Jane Hick’s alternate on BCDC, replacing Cameron Johnson.

Ms. Monarres is the North Branch Chief of the Regulatory Division of the Corp’s San Francisco District. She will serve for two years and then the alternate commissioner position will rotate back to Cameron Johnson. On behalf of the Commission I would like to welcome Ms. Monarres to the Commission and thank Cameron Johnson for his service, we look forward to seeing him again in the future.

b. Executive Director Position. As you know, I have appointed Steve Goldbeck, BCDC’s Chief Deputy Director, to serve as acting Executive Director until the Commission chooses and hires a permanent Executive Director.

As you know, we will not be able to hire a permanent Executive Director until the end of the state’s fiscal year, when we will have completed payments to Will Travis for his accumulated leave. I am working with the personnel office at BCDC to prepare a proposed process for selecting a new Executive Director, which I hope to present to you next month.

c. Joint Policy Committee. As was discussed in the January 6th briefing memo in your mailing packets, the Joint Policy Committee took up two items of interest to the Commission at its December meeting.

First, the JPC considered whether it would take the lead for facilitating a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy, as requested by the Commission.

And second, the JPC considered whether to hire Will Travis as a consultant. After some discussion the JPC decided that the member agencies should first consider these topics, and that the JPC should take it up again at their next meeting on January 20th.

I plan to continue to support both of these actions at the upcoming meeting, and hope my fellow Commissioners on the JPC will as well.

d. Next BCDC Meeting. At our next meeting, which will be held at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, we will take up the following matters:

(1) We will hold a public hearing on the proposed Bay Plan amendment for the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to accommodate the America’s Cup races.

(2) We will hold a public hearing on the proposed Bay Plan amendment for the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to accommodate a proposed Cruise Ship Terminal.

(3) Please note that both of these items will be discussed as part of the briefing that we will hear today.

(4) We will hold a public hearing and vote on an amendment to the permit we issued in 2001 for the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge. The amendment is for the removal of the old Bay Bridge from Treasure Island to Oakland.

(5) We will consider the approval of our 2011 Annual Report.

e. 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 McGrath stated: I have provided a written memo to Tim Eichenberg regarding discussions I have had with the Port of San Francisco and Access people. I highlighted to the staff the substantive information in the memo.

Commissioner Chiu added: I have had numerous conversations with folks around the America’s Cup item.

6. Report of the Executive Director. Acting Executive Director Goldbeck reported:

a. Personnel. We have two new legal interns this semester from UC Hastings College of Law. Joanna (Joey) Meldrum is a second year law student with a Masters in Engineering. Joey is a licensed Civil Engineer, Professional Geologist and is LEED accredited.

Last year Joey worked at the Coastal Commission and runs triathlons in her spare time.

Joshua Yellin is also a second year student at Hastings, who has worked in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the Office of General Counsel in the US Department of Agriculture in Washington DC. (Both interns stood up and were recognized by those in attendance).

b. State Budget. I’m pleased to report that there are no surprises in the state budget for BCDC, and so far there are no furlough programs or across-the-board cuts that would affect us.

We have included in your packets the section of the Governor’s proposed budget regarding the Commission. I will keep you informed as the budget process moves forward.

c. Travis’ retirement party. All Commissioners and alternates should have received an invitation to Will Travis’ retirement party, which will be held on February 2nd, after the Commission meeting.

7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Acting Executive Director Goldbeck stated that there were no listings on administrative matters.

8. Vote on Proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-11 to Delete the Port Priority Use Area Designation at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco. Chair Randolph announced that Item #8 is a vote on proposed revisions to the San Francisco Bay Plan and San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan dealing with Hunters Point in San Francisco. Linda Scourtis will present the staff recommendation.

Ms. Scourtis addressed the Commission: The staff report and preliminary recommendations on Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-11 were presented to you during the November 3rd public hearing and a duplicate copy of the final recommendation was mailed to you last Friday.

The proposed amendment would facilitate the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Project at the shipyard.

The Redevelopment Agency requested removal of the designation because one, portions of the planned stadium project as well as the research and development and residential variants include a waterfront promenade, recreation areas and an ecology park, which are inconsistent with the port priority use designation.

And two, there is no longer any need to reserve this site for port use.

The area is designated in the Seaport Plan for a future two-birth break bulk terminal.

Staff believes that removal of the designation will not prevent the Commission from meeting the goal of the McAteer-Petris Act to reserve adequate and suitable areas for maritime port use without increasing fill in the Bay.

The staff has concluded that this amendment is consistent with the provisions of the McAteer-Petris Act and that, although the overall development project will have significant adverse impacts on traffic, air quality, noise, cultural resources and police services, the proposed Bay Plan amendment will not have any direct, adverse effects on the environment.

For each of the significant impacts identified in the project EIR and outlined in the staff Environmental Assessment, changes to the project to address these effects would be within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and BCDC in its permit review.

The staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution 11-13 which would amend both the San Francisco Bay Plan and the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan to one, remove the port priority use designation from Hunters Point; two, amend Resolution 16 to delete the Hunters Point Naval Reservation; and, three, find that the amendment will not have any direct significant effects on the environment.

I will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Chair Randolph asked for a motion and a second on the staff recommendation.

MOTION: Commissioner Bates moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Chiu.

Chair Randolph asked if there were any questions or comments from the Commissioners. He received none.

The Chair asked Ms. Lai to conduct a roll call vote.

VOTE: Voting in the affirmative were Commissioners: Addiego, Apodaca, Bates, Chiu, Gibbs, Hicks, McGrath, Moy, Nelson, Sears, Vierra, Wagenknecht, Ziegler, Kato, Pine, Richards, Chappell and Chair Randolph. There were 18 affirmative votes, no nays, and no abstentions.

Chair Randolph announced that the motion carried.

9. Briefing on 34th America’s Cup 2012 and 2013 Events. Chair Randolph stated that Item 9 is a staff briefing on the overall plans and Commission actions needed for the America’s Cup races. The purpose of this briefing is to help us better understand how the individual plan amendment and permit decisions we will be making over the next several months fit into the overall plans for the America’s Cup event. Lindy Lowe and Ming Yeung will make the presentation.

Ms. Yeung addressed the Commission: Today’s briefing will provide information to assist you on the various approvals that the Commission must make on the project in the coming months.

The America’s Cup event will require both BCDC permit approval and approval of amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan or SAP.

Two BCDC permits are needed for the event. A permit for all the work associated for the event and a permit for the cruise terminal building at Piers 27 and 29, which would be used as the America’s Cup Village in 2013.

Two SAP amendments will also be needed. One to locate the cruise terminal building at Pier 27 and the other to allow temporary berthing and mooring of vessels in designated open-water basins for the America’s Cup.

Once OAL approves the SAP amendment non-federal projects relying on the amended language can then be brought before the Commission for consideration based on the new amended policies.

Two events must get underway to meet the event’s schedule. They include construction of the cruise terminal building at Pier 27 and work on Piers 30 and 32 where the AC 34 Team bases will be located.

A Commission hearing and possible vote for permits for these two project components have been scheduled immediately after the Commission’s vote on the SAP amendments.

The permits would be considered at the same meeting as the SAP amendments but after the Commission has voted to approve the amendments.

Construction at either site would be contingent upon final approval by OAL.

At the February 2nd Commission meeting the Commission will hold a public hearing on the two SAP amendments.

A vote on the two amendments has been tentatively scheduled a month after the hearing on March 1st.

We propose to hold a public hearing on this same date for the cruise terminal permit and a public hearing and possible vote for the Piers 30 and 32 work.

On March 15th we would hold a possible vote on the cruise terminal permit and in April or May following final OAL approval, a public hearing and vote on the remaining and majority of the America’s Cup Event work.

Consistency review of activities by federal agencies or on federal lands outside the Commission’s jurisdiction for the event will also be needed.

The proposed schedule will not begin until the final certification of a final environmental impact report by the City and any required approvals are granted by other federal, state or other resource agencies.

BCDC staff will continue to meet with other agencies involved in this process to ensure that their actions are consistent with its coastal program.

Ms. Lowe addressed the Commission: I will give you a brief overview of several key issues raised by the America’s Cup Project.

Several issues are associated with the use of portions of all of the four open-water basins designated in the Special Area Plan.

The use of all four of these open-water basins during the 2013 events will temporarily reduce the benefits associated with these open-water basins.

The proposed public benefits associated with the Special Area Plan amendment are designed to respond to the impacts that the temporary use of all four open-water basins may have on Bay views, public access, water recreation opportunities, fill and Bay ecology.

The other primary issues include the impact on public access and views during the event, the impact to water recreation opportunities on the Bay and the potential impacts to Bay ecology due to fill and dredging associated with the event.

Permanent public access contemplated for this event is distributed along the entire waterfront.

Mr. Martin addressed the Commission: I am Michael Martin the America’s Cup Project Director for the City of San Francisco, Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

I will present to you the potential venues and the types of uses there and try to run through some of the high-level issues we’ve been working through.

The real focus of attention is going to be on the northern waterfront.

We are trying to maximize the ability of people to move along the shoreline and enjoy the views of the race while at the same time minimizing damage to the Marina Green surface after the 2012 events.

We expect the largest spectator profile in 2013. We’ve tried to complete a technically correct approach to absorption analysis of the different sites. We are estimating weekend, average, turn-out peaks of approximately 188,000 to 250,000 people with the weekday being significantly lower. Mike Martin then showed a series of slides and described the proposed venue sites for the America’s Cup events in 2012 and 2013.

Mr. Albert addressed the Commission: I am Peter Albert from MTA and I’ll be speaking about the transportation planning.

Our people plan focused on five principles.

The first is public safety and this guides our public planning.

The second was resource efficiency, meaning that we have a lot of infrastructure already in place in the Bay area and we’re trying not to introduce new and untested elements but to emphasize parts of the existing network that can do extra lifting.

The third is environmental sustainability. A transit-oriented, pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented event helps with a lot of sustainability goals.

The fourth is strategic adaptability. It became clear that not every race day is going to be the same in terms of numbers of people. We had to design a plan that was capable of dealing effectively with this diverse and changing load on existing services.

The fifth is a positive legacy. This is not just the opportunity for an event to be spectacular but also for us to test and pilot elements of our own transportation planning that we’ve been wanting to do for years.

We will be working with the regional providers to augment the transit frequencies.

Mr. Aaron Lubrano with the Coast Guard stated: I will give a brief presentation of what the Coast Guard is planning at this point with an eye on our permitting process.

Four of our Coast Guard missions are applicable here.

One is a safe and accessible waterway. Two is smooth flow maritime commerce, which needs to be maintained during this event. Three and four are mitigating environmental impacts and our ability to continue Coast Guard operations.

We plan on having a final rule published in June or July of 2012 that will apply to 2012 as well as the 2013 events. The rule is a regulation that gives us additional authorities to control a portion of the Bay, which is the race area.

We plan on having a transit zone south of the race area that vessels will have access to in and out of the Bay.

Ms. Rosie Spaulding from the Event Authority said: I’d like to give you a quick overview of what the events might look like via a few photos of our previous America’s Cup World Series events. She then showed a number of slides to the Commission and discussed their particulars.

Chair Randolph thanked all the speakers for their informative presentations. He asked if there was anybody who would like to address the Commission on this issue.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin addressed the Commission: I would like to salute BCDC and the City staff for their recommendations and presentations.

It is very important that a positive legacy be left with us. I support staff’s long-term mitigation proposals. He then raised concerns about the video screen at Aquatic Park and asked whether there is a feasible upland alternative and expressed concern about the Host and Venue Agreement and long-term development rights.

Commissioner McGrath spoke: I want to end up voting in favor of this but there are some things that haven’t been covered.

I’m particularly interested on the impacts on water access and their adequate mitigation.

The California Constitution provides that no corporation with the frontage of the Bay shall be permitted to exclude the right of way whenever it’s required for any public purpose nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water.

It is this that I’m concerned about. And it is this that we’re still pending information on, pending the publication of the Coast Guard rule.

There are areas with current public access that will be affected by these events. What I have not seen in today’s presentations is anything specific that talks about what the actual impact will be.

The other policy that wasn’t mentioned is that the Bay Plan maps designate the entirety of the shoreline from west of the Golden Gate Bridge to near Fisherman’ Wharf as a waterfront park and beach.

And it’s further noted that the beach should be preserved for water-oriented recreation.

So, I see policies that protect and give an unusual status to on-water recreation. I don’t see analysis of what the impact on that protected, on-water recreation would be and whether or not it would be mitigated.

So it’s the answering of these questions that I need. It’s the restriction and prohibition of on-water access in parks that were protected and designated for that purpose that does concern me.

I do want to see that analyzed. I can’t imagine voting on elements of America’s Cup without seeing the whole of the project and particularly the impact on recreation.

Commissioner Nelson added: With regard to the video screen shown in the presentation; it strikes me as interesting that there’s a proposal here for floating fill that could potentially block views of the Bay in order to provide views of the Bay.

It’s going to be important to explore alternative locations and strategies along with how long that video screen would remain in place.

The artists’ renderings were useful in starting to give us an idea of the kinds of infrastructure that will be necessary to support the temporary event that has been discussed.

This is particularly important if the City is going to enter into arrangements triggered by dredging for proposed marina operations. Those potential permanent marina operations would not be covered by the Special Area Plan amendments or the permits as they’re currently presented to us.

It’s critical that we don’t back into long-term decisions and that if temporary infrastructure is put into place it truly is temporary.

One issue related to safety is that I noticed that one presentation noted that racing activity could be extremely close to shore and the Coast Guard’s presentation talked about there being a transit area along the front of the shoreline in order to provide safe transit for vessels that would not be participating in the racing events.

It wasn’t clear to me how those two things are compatible. I would like future presentations to be a little clearer as to how these two things are going to be made compatible.

Commissioner Chiu commented: I wonder if staff could talk about the latest thinking around the Jumbotron and what sort of mitigation measures you would consider.

Ms. Yeung answered: We’ve heard from both sides about the video screen. We are still considering whether or not we would consider it fill for one thing, whether or not it’s moored for an extended period of time.

And that’s one question that the Commission would answer. If it is fill, we would need to go through the tests, whether or not it’s a water-oriented use and whether or not there is an alternative upland location, whether or not the public benefits outweigh the public detriment.

And we would look at our Bay Plan policies as to whether or not it would impact public access or public views.

If we decide that we could approve it in the aquatic cove then we would look to mitigation measures to offset whatever public access or public recreational impacts are created.

We are still looking at this to decide if this is something we could approve as a Commission.

Commissioner Chappell stated: I think it’s very important to look at this holistically.

The whole thrust of this event is bringing people to the waterfront. It seems to me that when you look at it with that in mind these are people who would not ordinarily be coming to the waterfront.

Commissioner Ziegler commented: I’m interested in more information on potential water quality impacts. What is going to be done to accommodate pump out and those types of facilities?

Trash-related issues are tremendously important as far as water quality for the Bay is concerned.

There seemed to be nothing mentioned about ferries. It was clear that we’re looking to see how to utilize this opportunity to advance overall improvements for the Bay in the future knowing that ferries may play a role in that and it’s natural that people may want to travel by ferry.

I was wondering if there might be an opportunity here or not and its potential impacts.

I was unclear whether or not there would be an impact on the Bay Trail remaining open or not. I heard, we’ll try to keep it open. I wasn’t clear on that.

I was interested in what the cost or value of the legacy public access would be?

In regards to the super-yacht berthing I was wondering how that works and how many are expecting it. And also, how does this work? Does somebody make a reservation? What happens if 80 show up and there are 40 spots? Is this the type of contingency that you are planning for?

I was unclear if during race events, do people swim or not swim in terms of maintaining public access and recreation?

Commissioner Bates spoke: I was interested in the transportation aspect. How many parking spaces do you think will be available for people who want to drive their car to San Francisco and park and go to the races?

What are we really doing to make sure we get more public transportation coming?

Mr. Peter Albert replied: In terms of the transportation network, every aspect of the regional transportation system has been called into play, including the ferry network.

We are working with MTC on satellite parking and working directly with each community to make sure that the parking lots themselves don’t become the limit for why people couldn’t get on a train.

I can provide the amount of parking spaces that would be available for event participants for the staff if they would like that.

Commissioner McGrath commented: Another concern I have is the privatization and monetizing of public spaces and marine spaces.

This is a slippery slope. I think when you weigh the legacy benefits we have to look at this and make sure we haven’t set a precedent for our parks to be used for private monetary purposes wholesale. There needs to be a balance.

We need to be more creative on how we’re going to be able to maintain our parks.

There really does need to be a solid benefit and they need to be benefits that would not have come absent America’s Cup.

We need to consider these aspects very carefully.

Chair Randolph commented: Are there two villages or is there a principal village and what’s the differentiation between those facilities?

Should we anticipate other issues falling within the Commission’s jurisdiction coming before us that are outside of San Francisco but say, in Marin County, Alameda, Contra-Costa or San Mateo counties?

Ms. Lowe responded: The 2012 America’s Cup Village will be at Marina Green. In 2013 it will move to 27, 29. And then 30, 32 will be the team bases. So that’s why you have these three major venues.

Mr. Lubrano of the Coast Guard commented: We are in the process of writing this special regulation and we have taken into account all the users of the Bay.

The entirety of the national park, Crissy Field area, will have open access for non-motorized marine use.

Commissioner McGrath inquired: So with respect to kayaks or row boats or other people launched from Aquatic Park, they would be able to go along the shoreline within about a 900 foot band?

Mr. Lubano replied: From Aquatic Park over that’s where the transit area will access, and that will be from Aquatic Park all the way around the waterfront, out about 600 feet. That’s where the open transit lane will be for boats or kayaks or anyone who needs to have access along the waterfront.

At no point along the waterfront, except for some very specific areas at the finish of the race around Pier 27 we may close off a certain bit of that area, we have tried to keep that open access along the waterfront in both directions.

Commissioner McGrath asked: So then, no restrictions are contemplated at Pier 80?

Mr. Lubano answered: That’s well outside of the regulated areas. There’s no focus on that.

Commissioner McGrath continued: And in 2012, there will be no racing west of Anita Rock which would leave most of Crissy Field but not East Beach available for launching watercraft.

Mr. Lubano replied: We’re going to keep that water open. So the entirety of the beach will be open for launching. The racers won’t be allowed to come in to about 600 or 900 feet from the beach.

Commissioner McGrath continued: So, if someone was interested in going from there over to the North Tower, they would be able to get there.

Mr. Lubano answered: Well actually, they’ll have open access to the east, it will pinch off at the end of the break wall at the San Francisco Marina and have limited access between there and Aquatic Park yet there still will be the ability to have access.

Commissioner McGrath commented: I’m looking forward to seeing that because that will begin to answer a lot of questions.

Chair Randolph asked: Is there a safety issue if you have non-motorized transit on the shore between the shore and the race area?

Mr. Lubano answered: There is actually going to be a line of picket boats outlining the race-course. And there will also be a buffer area.

The racers have an electronic race-course that is drawn inside of the picket boats. They will probably not come close to the area where the kayakers will be.

Commissioner Bates commented: Will the races take place during the week and also the weekend? And what time do they start and what time do they end, typically?

Ms. Yeung responded: There will be weekday and weekend races. And they are typically from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Mr. John Craig from the Event Authority stated: I am the principal race officer. I am the one that will be running the races.

The schedule for the races will typically be from 12:00 until 4:00. It will be dependent on what the matches are.

We and the Coast Guard did a back and forth and I can assure you that there will be a good safe distance.

10. Consideration of Authorization to Implement the Commission’s Coastal Impact Assistance Program Grant. Item #10 is our consideration of approval for the Executive Director to enter into contracts associated with the federal Coastal Impact Assistance Program grant. Jessica Davenport and Brenda Goeden will present the staff report.

Ms. Davenport addressed the Commission: The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to enter into the contracts necessary to expend up to $500,000 of the $945,000 in Coastal Impact Assessment Program funds awarded to BCDC by the U.S. Department Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy, Management, Regulation, and Enforcement for the Commission’s Climate Change and Sediment Management Programs.

All of the elements in these programs are supporting the Commission’s Strategic Plan.

Commissioner McGrath commented: How do we set priorities about what gets worked on? And then, when we establish the approach in the work program, how do we get input from other people, especially related to the sediment management part, which is of most interest to me?

Ms. Brenda Goeden asked: Commissioner McGrath, I’m not sure I fully understand your question.

Commissioner McGrath replied: There are many, many issues about sediment and sediment budget in San Francisco Bay and there’s never enough money to study all of them. So how do you set up which are the most important things to study? And, how do you vet your approach? How do you make sure that people who might be affected buy into your approach?

Ms. Goeden answered: Regarding prioritization of research in San Francisco Bay, we started some of this work in 2010. So we have already started the process by consulting the experts in the Bay Area.

We have been working with USGS quite a bit but our work is not done. We’re actually just getting started in the mapping process. We also need to reach out to academia and get these public institutions involved in our process.

Commissioner McGrath added: The Regional Board is looking at watershed management issues through their TMDLs, through their storm water permits and restoration of flood control capacity, and watershed management is a big piece of that.

Commissioner Ziegler commented: Regarding the money, you have $945,000 coming in and this talks about $500,000, particularly for grants and then the remainder is going to staff? And that staff can be split between sediment and climate change and the climate change funding is for three years of staff. Am I following that right in the numbers?

Ms. Goeden replied: Yes, in fact, with the sediment program, 100 percent of the sediment management funding is going to staff time. It’s with the Climate Change Program that we’re entering into more contracts to do some of the studies and things like that.

Commissioner Ziegler added: And those contracts are to be determined. You don’t know who that is going to be yet.

Ms. Davenport responded: Right. We’re requesting authorization to go forward with this.

Commissioner Ziegler continued: And then the one other thing I’ll note, while it says, “sediment management program and developing a plan,” this first step is developing the blueprint. And then a regional plan is down the road. What is the guesstimate for how much and when we’ll actually have a regional sediment plan?

Ms. Goeden replied: This grant is to get us two different things; one, the science strategy and then the blueprint for the management plan. I don’t have an estimate for you on the amount of money because part of that will be fleshed out as we go along. I would anticipate that we could have a plan within the next three to five years.

Chair Randolph then spoke: I’d appreciate a motion and a second on the staff recommendation.

MOTION: Commissioner McGrath moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Vierra. The item passed by a show of hands 16-0-0.

11. Briefing on the Adapting to Rising Tides Project. Item #11 is a briefing on BCDC’s work on a pilot project in the East Bay to address adaptation to sea level rise. Lindy Lowe and Wendy Goodfriend will present the briefing. We will put this over to our next meeting.

12. New Business. No new business was discussed.

13. Old Business. No old business was discussed.

14. Motion: Commissioner Nelson moved to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner McGrath. The Commission meeting was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. by unanimous voice vote.

Respectfully submitted,


Steve Goldbeck
Acting Executive Director

Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of February 2, 2012

R. Sean Randolph, Chair