Minutes of March 15, 2012 Commission Meeting

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Wasserman at the Metro Center Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, CA, at 1:08 p.m.

2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Wasserman, Commissioners Chappell, Addiego, Apodaca (represented by Alternate Fergusson), Bates, Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Chiu, Fossum (represented by Alternate Pemberton), Gioia, Hicks (represented by Alternate Monarres), McGrath, Moy, Randolph, Sartipi (represented by Alternate Richards), Sears, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Vierra, Wagenknecht and Ziegler.

Chair Wasserman announced that a quorum was present.

Not present were: Sonoma County (Brown), Santa Clara County (Cortese), Department of Finance (Finn), Speaker of the Assembly (Gibbs), Governor’s Appointee (Jordan Hallinan), Senate Rules Committee (Nelson), San Mateo County (Pine) and Association of Bay Area Governments – North Bay Cities (Vacant).

3. Public Comment Period. Chair Wasserman called for public comment on subjects that wee not on the agenda. Comments would be restricted to three minutes per speaker.

Seeing no speakers, Chair Wasserman moved on to Item 4, Approval of Minutes.

4. Approval of Minutes of the March 1, 2012 Meeting. Chair Wasserman stated: I have provided staff some corrections to my remarks. Unless further corrections are needed, I would appreciate a motion, second and affirmative vote to adopt those minutes.

MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved for approval, seconded by Commissioner Fergusson. The motion passed by a voice vote with Commissioner Moy abstaining.

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

a. Today’s Meeting. We are going to first take up item 9, the briefing on the America’s Cup races, before the item 8 permit application, to make sure all the Commissioners are up to date on the changes to the America’s Cup and provide context to your consideration of the Cruise Terminal application.

b. Commissioner Appointments. State Lands Commission Executive Director Curtis Fossum appointed Sheri Pemberton as his alternate, replacing Grace Kato. We will provide a resolution honoring Commissioner Kato’s service at your next meeting.

c. Executive Director Position. Staff mailed out to you last Friday a memo that describes the process I hope we can use to conduct the search for a permanent Executive Director.

We included a description of the position and a time and task chart for the selection process.

Commissioner Gioia stated: I would be interested in serving on the committee involved in this process.

Chair Wasserman responded: I knew that and we will add you to the list. I would be happy to consider any comments you have on this in terms of time or thrust.

Commissioner McGrath commented: One of the things that David Lewis suggested when he suggested this type of approach is that the Commission have a discussion about the Executive Director position description. That could be done in a committee and to have a discussion about it doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to change.

Do you have a desire on that or is that consistent on the work of the subcommittee?

Chair Wasserman replied: I think it’s consistent with the work of the subcommittee but certainly we would welcome any comments now or in between from anybody who has read it.

We will certainly discuss this and it is open for discussion.

d. Next BCDC Meeting. We will hold our next meeting April 5th. At that meeting, which will be held at the Ferry Building in San Francisco, we intend to take up the following matters:

(1) Changes to the San Francisco Special Area Plan to address the America’s Cup races.

(2) A public hearing and vote on a permit for work on the Port of Redwood City Wharves 1 and 2.

(3) We will consider whether to take a position on Assembly Bill 57 regarding Commission representation on MTC, Steve Goldbeck will talk about the bill in his Executive Director’s Report.

(4) We will hold a briefing on the Adapting to Rising Tides project that is addressing potential methods to adapt to sea level rise in the Bay.

(5) We will consider a status report on the progress we are making in carrying out the Commission’s Strategic Plan.

e. Ex-Parte Communications. That completes my report. This is the time in which if any of you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with an indication of written or oral ex-parte communications that you may have had with matters coming before the Commission, I invite anyone who has had those and not informed staff to do so now.

Chair Wasserman stated: I did have a conversation with Dave Lewis from Save the Bay over very general matters.

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

a. Personnel. Carolynn Box of the Commission’s Sediment Management team, has left the Commission’s staff to pursue her passion for addressing the issue of marine plastics pollution in association with the 5 Gyres Initiative.

Karen Weiss of the Commission’s Regulatory staff has taken a new position with the Department of Fish and Game.

We wish them both well in their new endeavors.

At this point we have four staff vacancies and three people who are on extended leave. However, we are still determining whether we have adequate funds this fiscal year to fill any of the positions and we certainly can’t fill all of them.

This is putting a stress on staff in carrying out your mission and I hope you will bear with us as we work to meet our permit deadlines and manage the Commission’s core program.

b. Assembly Bill AB 57. As I mentioned at our last meeting, AB 57 has been introduced by Assembly Member Beal that would amend the membership on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission to include two additional members, one each from the City of Oakland and the City of San Jose. The bill has now been amended to provide that the BCDC representative to MTC be a San Francisco resident and approved by the Mayor of San Francisco. We included the bill language in last Friday’s mailing to you and staff will prepare a staff report on the proposed legislation for Commission consideration at your April 5th meeting.

Chair Wasserman commented: Certainly, the concept of adding representatives from Oakland and San Jose makes sense to me. I appreciate San Francisco’s desire that they would have three representatives along with the three representatives in the other two counties.

I do think that imposing that on the BCDC representative is not good policy because it impinges on the purpose of regional cooperation of having a BCDC Commissioner on MTC and has potential severe restrictions because the pool of people who would then be eligible becomes a very different pool.

We have tried to suggest that they could simply add an additional person from San Francisco. There is an even number of votes on MTC today, sixteen people; so, if in fact, you added one, they’d have an odd number which is, in general, what we do.

Commissioner Gioia added: This issue was raised in some other regional government meetings. I think it’s an additional reason that we should convey is that, is that ultimately, the BCDC representative is somebody who wears a regional hat as opposed to somebody who is there representing a particular region.

In this instance they become a San Francisco appointment as opposed to a BCDC appointment and they just happen to sit on BCDC but they’re appointed by the City. It takes the regional perspective away which is why that seat exists, to get the regional BCDC perspective.

Commissioner Chappell commented: I’d like to concur with both prior speakers on this.

Commissioner Bates stated: As the bill is currently constituted, you cannot have more than three people from one particular county. I think if Commissioner Chiu was our appointee, we couldn’t do any better.

Chairman Wasserman commented: If San Francisco added somebody without affecting the BCDC seat then the BCDC appointee could not come from Alameda, Santa Clara or San Francisco counties under the bill as it’s written now.

You will have a chance to discuss this further at the April 5th meeting.

7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters. This item was not addressed.

9. Briefing to update the Commission regarding the 34th America’s Cup Events. Lindy Lowe provided the following introduction: In order to ensure that the Commission understands and stays up to date on the America’s Cup project, staff scheduled a briefing by City and Port staff intended to provide information on changes to the project, the development deal and the 2012 and 2013 events. As the Commission currently has a number of items coming before it related to the project and will continue over the next several months to be asked to vote on aspects of the project, staff felt it was important to keep you as up to date as possible regarding this evolving project.

Mr. Mike Martin presented the following: I am the America’s Cup Project Director from the Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development in San Francisco.

On February 27th it was announced that the prior iteration of the America’s Cup Plan was not going to move forward which included certain financial relationships and long-term development rights as well as the plans for the event.

So today I want to describe for you where we are in the process. It is still a dynamic process. We’re trying to negotiate a new arrangement as well as continue to brief policy makers and stakeholders to make sure we’re heading in a direction that everyone can get behind.

I am very optimistic that we will have a good story to tell in a few weeks at our Board of Supervisors but today we’ll show how those building blocks are getting knitted together.

The Board of Supervisors hopes to come back at our March 27th meeting with a full set of project approval documents.

The Event Plan is predominately within the footprint that was studied under our CEQA document.

Piers 30, 32 team base areas are no longer a part of the long-term development deal. Piers 26, 28 and seawall lot 330 are likely not a part of the America’s Cup project at this juncture.

Pier 80 potentially could increase its footprint. We are looking at this in terms of Board approval and the environmental review and what kind of activities we can have down there in a safe and attractive way.

The previous schedule had included two America’s Cup World Series Regattas in August. It has now been announced that the proposal includes one August regatta and a second regatta that is being targeted for early October.

The overall infrastructure financing structure has changed. All of the long-term development rights relationships that were in the prior deal are no longer part of the deal.

There is no longer either land side or marina development rights. The focus is really on the temporary event uses as our applications have noted.

In terms of the operational side, aside from the capital improvements, that structure remains the same.

Mr. Brad Benson of the Port commented: I am the Special Projects Manager for the Port of San Francisco representing Port Director, Monique Moyer and the Port team.

As we have been thinking about the reconfigured event, particularly the waterfront construction activities, it’s been our goal to keep in the Plan all of the permanent legacy improvements that the Port staff and the America’s Cup Team have negotiated with your staff over these many months of planning.

We are looking for ways for the Port to carry out these waterfront construction activities rather than relying on the Event Authority.

We are looking for ways to try to keep Piers 30/32 as the site for the team industrial bases. We are looking for more focused improvements on the piers that would accommodate fewer team bases.

We are still looking at Pier 80 as a potential location for the team industrial bases.

Commissioner McGrath commented: Does this mean you’re only expecting five teams or the first five get the prime space? And the second question is, the deck in this area has sufficient structural integrity to be able to handle those loads without any significant improvements, could you elaborate on that a little bit?

Mr. Martin answered: The plan would be to have five team bases at Piers 30-32 with overflow at Pier 80 if there are more teams. The final number of teams competing hasn’t been determined yet.

There would be pile improvements, beam improvements and slab improvements in a portion of the pier. This is only an eighth of the pier that would be fixed in this way.

Commissioner Randolph asked: What is the total percentage of the existing piers that will not be improved?

Mr. Benson replied: I think we’re looking at between one-eighth and one-seventh of the entire pier that would see improvements. These improvements along with a marginal wharf improvement could extend the life of the pier to 20 to 30 years.

Commissioner Randolph inquired: And the rest of the pier that is not improved would be cordoned off from the public or any other access?

Mr. Benson answered: Since the pier was built at different times it has different structural qualities in different areas of the pier. Without additional upgrades in the future there may be portions of the pier that would become unusable and could be cordoned off or otherwise dealt with.

Chair Wasserman asked if there was anybody in the public that wished to comment on this subject or had a question regarding this matter.

There were no public commenters.

8. Public Hearing and Vote on Application No.2012.002.00 – Port of San Francisco for the James R. Herman Cruise Terminal Project at Piers 27-29, along the Embarcadero in the City and County of San Francisco. Ms. Ming Yeng made t he following presentation:

At the Commission’s last meeting on March 1st, the Commission approved an amendment to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to allow a cruise terminal to be sited at Piers 27 and 29.

The amendment identifies a range of public benefits and public access requirements to offset the siting of the cruise terminal at Piers 27/29 including relocating the Northeast Wharf Open Water Basin to another site along the northeastern waterfront.

With the approval of these policy changes we are bringing to you today the major permit for the cruise terminal at this location.

In total, the project would result in approximately 969 square feet of new Bay fill to repair a few piles and some of the pier substructure and install new fendering along the Pier 27 apron.

The project would also result in up to approximately 416,600 square feet of new public access both at Piers 27/29 and at adjacent piers.

The staff believes the proposed project raises four issues which are listed and discussed in your staff summary.

Ms. Monique Moyer commented: I am the Executive Director of the Port of San Francisco.

We have tried for a very long time to enhance our existing cruise facility at Pier 35 but it was built at the turn of the century to do break bulk and passenger cruising.

We have calculated that when we have a robust cruise year we generate almost 60 million dollars in revenues for the region, half of that stay with the City and County of San Francisco and the other half is distributed around the Bay, primarily on the east Bay.

Mr. Hodapp addressed the Commission: I am Dan Hodapp with the Port of San Francisco, Planning and Development Division.

The James R. Herman Cruise Terminal and the collection of public spaces around Pier 27 are proposed as a result of a collaboration between BCDC and the Port that stretches back over a dozen years.

Many conditions have changed over these last twelve years. Working with the BCDC staff we have hopefully come up with a collection of cruise terminal and public space projects on and around Pier 27 that respond to all these evolving conditions.

The following slides show a number of these projects and some of the detail involved in completing them.

Mr. Peter Pfau presented the following: These images show some of the work that will be involved in the first phase of the project which is the delivery of the cruise ship terminal with the benefit that the America’s Cup Event will be able to use this facility for various team hospitality uses.

Phase II will include the Northeast Wharf Plaza, further development of the tip and the cruise terminal build out, and the complete GTA area.

The terminal project is a LEED Silver building and green in many other ways and we’re quite passionate about its green qualities.

The plantings on the Northeast Wharf Plaza site are added to soften the working waterfront character and it’s specifically chosen to be San Francisco native, drought tolerant, appropriate to the waterside location and to add different textures and color and special definition to the site.

The ground transportation area (GTA) is designed to be as flexible as possible to accommodate other uses on non-cruise days.

Our ability to design and operate a terminal that performs well for provisioning is a key element to attracting cruise lines to the site.

The apron will be closed to public access during the half a year when it’s being used for cruise uses but will be available for public access the rest of the time.

Ms. Diane Oshima commented: I am with the Port’s Planning and Development Division. We do have some Bay fill that is proposed as part of the apron development.

There is still some issue as to whether the cut line for the Pier 29 Shed could be further out than what is shown along the dotted line in this slide. So we do have a provision in the permit that provides for us to be able to fine tune that and come back before you if necessary for an amendment.

The shore side power is an important part of the cruise terminal operations. We have shore side power now but it has to be temporarily decommissioned in order to be able to make way for the America’s Cup if that happens and for the construction of the cruise terminal itself.

As part of the staff recommendation we also have provisions for moving that shore side power equipment out of the way and also introducing a second new shore side power system down at Pier 70 for our ship repair yard.

We are seeking full funding for the Northeast Wharf Plaza in the form of a general obligation bond measure in order to accelerate its delivery. This would be the funding source that would enable us to be able to deliver the Plaza with the terminal as part of the Phase II improvements that have been described for 27/29.

We are committed to a survey of all the historic piers in the Embarcadero Historic District to really look at, what is their useful life, what is their possibility for being able to meet development and public access of maritime objectives along the waterfront and staging that into any future policies that BCDC and the Port would be approving.

Mr. David Lewis spoke: I am from Save the Bay. I want to compliment the Port and the staff on some of the environmental benefits that are incorporated into this permit that will benefit the Bay and the region’s environment.

The permit reflects some changes in configuration on the waterfront that you made when you amended the Special Area Plan. That plan that was amended more than a decade ago called for more public access on this site than is now going to be provided.

In particular, the Northeast Waterfront Plaza is significantly diminished in size and access is going to be restricted to it because of the requirements around the cruise ship terminal and security.

As we’ve pointed out before, when you reduce the amount of and quality of public access that you’re going to provide from what was previously contemplated, you should provide an equal or greater amount somewhere else.

And the farther away it is from where you’re providing it, the greater that compensation should be.

Also, if you’re going to delay providing public access benefits over a number of years, you should also provide more.

There is not a suggestion of what happens if anticipated public benefits are not realized in the anticipated timeline.

When you require public access as a condition of a permit, you usually don’t allow the permitee to only provide that if they find money. And you usually don’t allow them to wait a decade.

Our suggestion is for you to accelerate these timelines, both for the public access and for the planning processes that are provided for Fisherman’s Wharf and for the open water basin and to put some pretty severe requirements if those deadlines are not met for more public access to be provided as compensation.

Commissioner Vasquez commented: How does all this get funding? What are the colors of money that come in putting all these projects together?

And is there a document that shows how things get funded?

Ms. Monique Moyer answered: We are funding the project primarily with revenues of the Port of San Francisco, some of which have been in escrow from the prior project at 30/32 when we sold the Water Mark Condos, some of which is coming from our operating capital budget and most of which is going to be financed.

Commissioner Vasquez asked: Do you have a document of some kind that shows how all that would work and how much money?

Ms. Moyer replied: Yes we do and we can send that over to you.

Commissioner McGrath commented: I want to make sure that the letter we have from the Turtle Island Restoration Network doesn’t ask for a new condition for existing shore side power?

Ms. Yeung answered: The letter from Teri Shore basically mimics the condition that we recommend in the recommendation. And I believe the Port is comfortable with the condition that we have included.

Commissioner McGrath continued: Mr. Lewis has asked for acceleration of some of the public access benefits and I think we understand that it depends some on existing funds and some on finance funds.

I’d like to have you comment on the feasibility of that.

Mr. Benson commented: The two dates of five years and eleven years after completion to provide public benefits stipulated in the project were fairly closely negotiated with BCDC staff.

Commissioner Bates commented: Mr. Lewis made a comment that there wouldn’t be a bathroom for five years. Is that true? And if so, what do you plan to do about it?

Ms. Yeung replied: The recommendation has the bathroom coming in at Phase III. So again, it’s based on funding.

Commissioner Bates inquired further: What happens if the funding isn’t approved by the voters of San Francisco? What does that do to the project?

Ms. Yeung answered: We’ve built in the timeline so that it would be within eleven years of cruise ship occupancy. That provides them with enough time to obtain the funding.

Commissioner Bates continued: So what happens in the meantime?

Ms. Oshima commented: Regarding the restroom, that’s an expense feature where we don’t know yet if it’s going to be able to fit within the budget of the full delivery of the Park.

And so, for the general bond funds as we develop the construction drawings for the Plaza, if we are successful in getting those general bond funds and it covers the restrooms, great.

But we weren’t sure that we had it fully covered and so that was the reason there was that kind of –

Commissioner Bates asked: So you’ll have a portable? You know, there was a woman from Alameda County that got to be elected to be the Secretary of State of California just by opposing bathrooms that you have to pay a fee for.

Ms. Oshima stated: We understand the priority of getting public bathrooms into the funding strategy for the Park and so we are actively working on that.

Commissioner Bates asked: What are the penalties if you don’t reach these milestones?

Ms. Yeung replied: The Port would then be in violation of their permit and we could institute an enforcement action or they would come in and request a time extension for the permit and we may consider at that time whether or not additional public access in the interim might be appropriate for that delay.

Commissioner Bates continued: I mean, there’s not much teeth behind that. I mean, you’re not going to say, don’t operate, right?

Ms. Yeung responded: It’s similar to the other permits that we authorize. We generally have a timeline for most public access improvements. Most applicants either meet the deadline or they don’t.

And if they don’t, they actually request a time extension.

Commissioner Bates commented: I wanted to ask the Port if they were going to name the cruise terminal after Mr. Herman? I happen to be one of the people who knew him and he was a great labor leader. I think it’s appropriate to have some kind of recognition for him other than just his name.

Ms. Oshima replied: He’s a huge figure for the San Francisco Waterfront. We have a bayside history walk feature that’s included as part of the Pier 29 public access feature. We also have the whole lobby area for the terminal itself and that’s where we would focus on having something that educates the public about his contributions.

Commissioner Fergusson commented: I understand from the presentation that about half the days are cruise days and half the days are not cruise days.

How are those distributed throughout the year?

Ms. Oshima answered: Typically the cruise schedule will range between May and September. We are looking at a 40 to 80 call per year schedule. It varies quite significantly from year to year.

Commissioner Randolph commented: On the restroom question, is there public access to the terminal itself on a continuous basis for portions of the terminal? And if so, is there a bathroom inside the terminal that the public could access?

Ms. Oshima stated: There are restrooms in the terminal building. As to having them open on a year round basis to meet that Park need, I think that that’s one option but there’s another option also.

There’s the Belt Railroad Building within the Plaza itself. We had tagged that as possibly a place where there could be some sort of an eating establishment but there’s some further work to do in terms of its re-use planning.

So there are a number of different possibilities that all have different funding strategies.

Commissioner Randolph continued: What kind of public access, other than for special events, will there be to the interior of the building? And how continuous would that access be available?

In other words, could you walk in off the Plaza into a lobby area of the terminal and walk around?

Ms. Oshima replied: When the Terminal Building is open I would characterize it as informal public access. It’s not BCDC designated public access for your permitting purposes.

There will be secured areas where only authorized passengers are allowed to advance.

We have not suggested that the Terminal Building be counted towards the public access programs that are quantified in the staff recommendation.

Commissioner McGrath commented: Under our legislation we are limited to requiring the maximum, feasible public access consistent with the project.

Perhaps the bathroom is important enough that it should replace some other mechanism. Is there a way to accomplish that?

Is there a way that it could be accommodated by rearranging some of the priorities?

Ms. Oshima stated: I think that we would be open to that. If there is an interest in prioritizing the restroom over some other onsite public access I think that we would be open to that.

Commissioner McGrath commented: I think we could give the sense of the Commission that some adjustment be made, as long as it doesn’t change the footprint of the public access, that chooses a bathroom among the amenities as a higher priority item.

I think it would reflect what I hear from the Commission and not undermine the feasibility and allow us to act today.

Chair Wasserman inquired: Where is the nearest public restroom to the Plaza?

Ms. Yeung answered: I believe at Pier 7, there’s a public restroom there. As well as Pier 39, there are some public restrooms there.

I think this is a pretty easy fix. We would just change the timing in the public access condition of when the public restrooms would come online. We could work with the applicant on that.

Commissioner McGrath commented: I understand that during the period of the America’s Cup there’s going to be other activities out there and there’s going to be portable potties and the full access isn’t going to be open.

I think if it was changed to five years and that was acceptable to the applicant and the staff made that recommendation, it might make the Commission more comfortable.

Chair Wasserman added: I’m inclined to agree with Commissioner McGrath.

Ms. Yeung stated: I’d like to ask to make sure that the applicant is comfortable with that as well.

Mr. Brad Benson commented: We’d like to have a few minutes to check in with Monique Moyer and get back to you with an answer on that.

Ms. Yeung commented: The Port is planning to rehabilitate the Beltline Building to be a commercial use and that could provide the public restrooms in the interim as well.

(A short off-the-record break was taken)

Mr. Brad Benson commented: I think that the Port would be willing to agree to the five year idea of speeding up the delivery of the public restrooms.

Our request would be, if we haven’t obtained the funding for the Northeast Wharf Plaza, remember that there is a trigger that that could happen up to eleven years from Phase I of the cruise terminal. In this case, the bathroom would be a temporary one.

Commissioner McGrath asked: Is the staff going to change the recommendation to incorporate that?

Ms. Yeung replied: Yes, we will. On March 9th you were mailed a copy of the staff recommendation which recommends that the Commission approve the major permit for the James R. Herman International Cruise Terminal Project.

The staff recommendation includes a number of conditions designed to assure that the project is consistent with the Commission’s Bay Plan and San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan Policies.

The project, and particularly, the public access areas on the Northeast Wharf Plaza have been designed to be consistent with the policies of the Waterfront Special Area Plan in size, design and function.

Final plan review approval is required of all public access improvements to ensure that these spaces are attractive, integrated with adjacent uses, barrier free and reflect the recommendations of the Commission’s Design Review Board.

The recommendation also requires that project elements that have not yet been reviewed such as the removal of the end of the Pier 29 Shed be reviewed by the Design Review Board and approved by Commission staff as needed.

In addition, conditions addressing shared maritime and public access use and requiring the Port to provide open water basins consistent with the Special Area Plan have also been included.

To address the Commission’s policies on natural resources conditions on pile driving, the use of shore side power, discharges from cruise ships, litter control and a number of conditions requiring best construction management practices have been included.

Finally, the recommendation requires approval from all relevant resource agencies and final adoption of the Special Area Plan Amendment by the Office of Administrative Law before work can begin.

As conditioned and with the new change for the public restrooms, the staff believes that the project is consistent with the Commission’s law, Bay Plan and Special Area Plan policies regarding Bay fill, public access and natural resources and recommend approval of the staff recommendation.

Commissioner Fergusson asked: Understanding that there is a range of from 40 to 80 cruise events per year, I’m reading that the area would be closed up to one day before and up to one day after; I’m wondering if there is a mechanism to revisit that after a couple of years of operational experience to see if we can narrow the time that it’s closed?

Ms. Yeung replied: What we did in the recommendation is that we recognized that the maritime use is really the primary use in this area but we didn’t want to foreclose having public access some of the time.

We tried to offset the public access loss there by providing public access off-site as well.

The recommendation acknowledges that this area could be closed up to half of the year and perhaps even more.

We requested that the Port provide us with an annual reporting of the vessel calls so we have an understanding of what the upcoming year would look like.

Commissioner Fergusson asked: Is there the opportunity to have input on the operating schedule? Is there an opportunity in the future to narrow that window of lost public access? It doesn’t sound like there is a mechanism for that.

Ms. Yeung replied: What we have tried to do in the condition is encourage the Port to close the area as little as possible.

We recognize that it might be closed 200 days a year or 364 days a year, it really would vary from time to time.

We thought if it could be open some days of the year, that would be better than having it closed all the time.

Executive Director Goldbeck commented: The time that the area is closed when there is a vessel call is controlled by Homeland Security issues that we don’t really have control over.

We’re working with the Port and they understand that it should be opened as quickly as possible but if security concerns require it to be closed for an extra day, that’s kind of what has to happen.

Chair Wasserman asked for a motion and a second to close the public hearing on this matter.

MOTION: Commissioner Gioia moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Chiu.

MOTION: Commissioner McGrath moved the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Chiu.

VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 16-0-0 with Commissioner Addiego, Fergusson, Bates, Chappel, Gilmore, Chiu, Pemberton, McGrath, Moy, Randolph, Richards, Sears, Vasquez, Vierra, Wagenknecht, and Chair Wasserman voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions.

10. New Business. No new business was discussed.

11. Old Business. No old business was discussed.

12. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Bates seconded by Commissioner Randolph the meeting adjourned at 3:01 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Acting Executive Director Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of April 5, 2012