Minutes of April 5, 2012 Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Halsted at the Ferry Building, Port of San Francisco Board Room, Second Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 at 1:06 p.m.
2. Roll Call. Present were: Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Addiego, Apodaca, Bates (represented by Alternate Butt), Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Chiu, Gibbs, Jordan Hallinan, Hicks, McGrath, Moy, Nelson, Pine, Randolph, Sartipi, Sears, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Techel, 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), State Lands (Fossum), Contra Costa County (Gioia), Resources Agency (Vierra), and Governors Appointee (Wasserman).
3. Public Comment Period. Vice Chair Halsted called for public comment on subjects that were not on the agenda. Comments would be restricted to three minutes per speaker.
Harold Miller spoke: I am President of the Tenant’s Association Sunnydale. I am requesting that if you have any job openings please come to the black communities of Sunnydale and we have a bulletin board at our community center and post them there.
Captain Taylor G. Lewis commented: I am a U.S. Coast Guard 500 ton master. I also represent a large contingency of recreational captains who are currently inbound to San Francisco in preparation for the America’s Cup.
I commend the work for all those involved in the America’s Cup process.
As a representative voice for about 45 captains transiting vessels greater than 30 meters that are going to be generating a lot of revenue for the City I would like to make sure that while we’re doing everything from a land-based perspective to ensure the integrity and the success of this event, as a maritime operator we always work under a contingency of safety first and not getting too far ahead of ourselves, so I’d just like to make sure as I represent these captains that we ensure that there is something in store or in preparation for these particular day-to-day operational things of a vessel that are potentially a by-product to our City or could cause safety issues.
Vice Chair Halsted asked: Is the Harbor Safety Committee the one that would be dealing with this issue of safety?
Captain Lewis answered: Yes. My concern is that the timeline to fruition of this event and the incursion of boats coming is that the timeline to ensure the captains that are coming here that they have safe port of call and safe access to land ship/shore facilities.
Mr. Tom Stinson spoke: I wish to express our gratitude to the Commission for not turning its back on small business while tackling such larger matters.
Sinbad would like to be very helpful in any way should you need us.
Mr. John Coleman addressed the Commission: Former Executive Director Will Travis is going to be an honored award recipient of the Frank C. Boerger Award at the upcoming Decision Makers Conference on April 26th at Scott’s Restaurant in Oakland.
This award is given to someone who has exhibited both wanting to protect the environment and the ecology of the Bay as well as the economy of the Bay area as a whole.
A lot of people don’t realize that when you combine the GDP of the nine greater Bay area counties and Sacramento and San Joaquin, we’re ranked 17th in the world in GDP, over 700 billion dollars of commerce.
Our conference will address a number of issues that are currently being discussed by the Commission.
Mr. Norman Pearce spoke: I am an avid boater in San Francisco Bay for many, many years. The approval by the Board of Supervisors for the America’s Cup was very big for small business.
I am here to reinforce the fact that this opportunity for San Francisco to create income from a place that we’ve had very little income, our waterfront and our Port, is fast approaching.
Having no more public speakers, Vice Chair Halsted moved on to Item 4.
4. Approval of Minutes of the March 15, 2012 Meeting. Vice Chair Halsted entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of March 15, 2012 meeting.
MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez, to approve the March 15, 2012 Minutes. The motion carried by a voice vote with Commissioners Nelson, Jordan Hallinan, Sartipi, Butt, Vasquez, Techel, Apodaca and Hicks abstaining.
5. Report of the Chair. Vice Chair Halsted reported on the following:
a. Peter Douglas. I am saddened to report that Peter Douglas, who helped to create the California Coastal Commission and was its Executive Director for over 25 years, passed away on Sunday, April 1st, after a long battle with cancer. He was truly a visionary and a staunch protector of the coast. We will adjourn today’s meeting in his memory.
b. Joint Policy Committee. The JPC recently met on March 16th. At that meeting the JPC voted to, among other things, establish an executive committee of the chairs and executive directors of the JPC agencies to foster collaboration and resolve conflicts among the agencies, and provide a more nimble approach to dealing with JPC issues than is now the case. To that end, in line with our change in chairs, it is appropriate for Chair Wasserman to be appointed to the JPC to serve on it, and its newly minted executive committee. If you are so willing, I would appreciate a motion, a second and an affirmative vote to concur in appointing Chair Wasserman to replace Sean Randolph on the JPC.
MOTION: Commissioner Randolph moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The motion passed by a voice vote with no opposition or abstentions.
Chair Wasserman asked me to extend his thanks for the outstanding leadership and representation that Commissioner Randolph has provided on the JPC. I think you all know that Sean will continue his involvement in the JPC through his leadership on preparing the JPC’s Bay Area Economic Development Strategy.
c. Commissioner Appointments. Napa Mayor Jill Techel has been appointed by ABAG to serve as the North Bay City representative on BCDC, replacing Joan Lundstrom. Commissioner Techel has appointed San Rafael councilmember Marc B. Levine to serve as her alternate.
Commissioner Sartipi’s alternate, James Richards has retired and Grace Kato has been replaced as Commissioner Fossum’s alternate. Our staff has provided draft resolutions of appreciation in your packet to honor outgoing Commissioner James Richards and Commissioner Grace Kato. I would welcome a motion, second and affirmative vote to adopt the resolutions.
MOTION: Commissioner McGrath moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Nelson. The Motion was approved unanimously by Commissioners present.
d. Update on Selection of BCDC’s Executive Director. On Friday, March 30, Chair Wasserman sent the recruitment package for BCDC’s Executive Director to Commissioners and Alternates. The materials included a recruitment brochure and job description. These materials were posted on BCDC’s website, and as of yesterday, April 4, HR staff mailed the material to recruitment contacts.
On Monday, April 2, Commissioners and Alternates also received a revised timeline of the process. The timeline was revised to include an outreach component to give BCDC constituencies and BCDC staff the opportunity to provide input about the qualifications of the ideal candidate.
The Selection Committee hopes to complete this outreach process no later than May 15, 2012. The Committee intends to meet with David Lewis from Save the Bay and John Coleman from the Bay Planning Coalition. Knowing that our mailing list has received the recruitment package, we will consider any written comments which others might submit. Of course, members of the public may also make comments during the public comment portion of Commission meetings.
The Selection Committee is moving as quickly as it can to meet the time lines outlined in the search process so that a new Executive Director can be selected and appointed by late
e. Next BCDC Meeting. We will not need to hold our April 19th meeting; instead, there will be a briefing for new Commissioners at 1 p.m. in the Bay View Room of the Commission’s offices. Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on May 3rd. At that meeting, which will be held here at the Ferry Building, we will take up the following matters:
(1) We will hold a public hearing and vote on proposed work to the Port of Redwood City Wharves 1 & 2.
(2) We will hold a public hearing and vote on proposed work on Piers 30 & 32 along the San Francisco waterfront.
(3) We will hold a briefing on the Sustainable Communities Strategy for our region: Plan Bay Area.
(4) We will also hold a briefing on Adapting to Rising Tides, the Commission’s pilot program for adaptation to sea level rise.
f. 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.
No Commissioners had ex-parate communications to report.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Goldbeck reported:
a. Office Move. We continue to work on our impending move from our current offices. Our preferred option remains 390 Main Street, a few blocks from our current offices, where we would move in with the MTC, Air Board, and perhaps ABAG. You concurred with this assessment last July.
We have been attending sessions on planning for the renovation of the building. However, it is probable that there will be a significant gap between when the building renovation is finished and when we have to move.
We are working with MTC and the state Department of General Services to try to find a solution. Further, State Senator DeSaulnier has introduced SB 1545, which would prevent MTC from spending toll money on the building pending resolution of an ongoing state audit, which creates further uncertainty.
Therefore, we continue to also look at other potential locations for relocating the offices; in which case we would try to move to 390 Main at some later date. I will continue to keep you apprised as we work through this.
7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Goldbeck stated: On March 23rd we sent you the listing of the 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.
8. Vote on Bay Plan Amendment No. 4-11 to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan regarding the Open Water Basin Policies and Plan Implementation Requirements to Accommodate the 34th America’s Cup Events. Vice Chair Halsted stated that Item 8 is a vote on the proposed Bay Plan amendment for the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan regarding the America’s Cup races. We held a public hearing on this amendment at our February 2nd meeting. Lindy Lowe will now provide the staff recommendation.
Ms. Lowe presented the following: Item 8 is the vote for Bay Plan Amendment 4-11 requested by the Port of San Francisco and the America’s Cup Event Authority to amend the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to temporarily use the open water basins designated by the Special Area Plan for the berthing of vessels associated with the 34th America’s Cup Events.
The public hearing for this item was held February 2nd. This is a quick overview of the schedule for the project.
April 5th brings us to a vote on the SAP amendment for the America’s Cup and then you will be hearing the larger America’s Cup Project probably sometime in May or June.
The Special Area Plan was amended over ten years ago to change BCDC’s policies regarding fill removal and permitted uses on piers, providing the opportunity to comprehensively plan the section of the waterfront from China Basin to Pier 35.
The key overall public benefits adopted in the 2000 Special Area Plan are: the removal of deteriorating piers, the restoration of open water, the development of a public access network and an implementation program to implement public plazas, open water basins and public access, the enhancement of Bay views, the preservation of historic resources and re-uses to draw more public to the Bay.
The Special Area Plan has been amended twice since the 2000 Amendment and most recently the cruise ship terminal amendment which the Commission approved last month.
Some interested parties indicated a concern that the amendment was being done for a specific project and that a project-by-project approach to areas within the Northeastern Wharf Waterfront was not adequate.
They indicated that prior to requesting future plan amendments, the Port should work with BCDC staff to conduct a series of interviews with key interested parties to determine the views of these parties along the waterfront and identify a process and approach for future amendments to the Special Area Plan.
These interviews were conducted between October 2010 and January 2011. They represented a broad range of organizations.
One of the main perspectives that came out of the interviews was that it would be preferable for the Port and BCDC to comprehensively view planning the San Francisco Waterfront.
It was also recognized by the people who were interviewed that there are distinct sub-areas along the waterfront and those distinct sub-areas need to be recognized. And the amount of trade-offs between the sub-areas also needs to be carefully planned so that impacts do not occur in one sub-area with the improvements happening in another area.
These issues were included in the thinking on the America’s Cup amendment. Several issues were raised by the public about the use of portions of the open water basins designated in the Special Area Plan. There will be impacts to Bay views, Bay ecology, public access and water-oriented recreation.
It is important to note that many changes have taken place regarding the America’s Cup Event over the last couple of months.
The proposed race course has not changed. This is the same race course that I showed you in February at the hearing.
The Coast Guard is proposing to preserve water access for water recreation users at Crissy Beach and Crissy Field by establishing a 600 to 15 hundred foot wide zone offshore of Crissy Field for use by non-motorized, small craft only.
In addition, a 200 yard wide transit zone for both commercial and recreation vessels is proposed along the San Francisco Waterfront.
The staff has proposed that a finding be added to the Special Area Plan to make the amendment clearer. The finding is meant to identify the benefits associated with the America’s Cup Events and to ensure that special events use be consistent with the public benefits required in the Plan, be temporary and that the public benefits provided with the amendment are commensurate to the size and duration of the event.
A policy was added to the Plan to require the removal of fill associated with the temporary use of the open water basins by January 2014.
Although there has been a lot of effort to reduce the impacts on water-oriented recreation, there will be impacts to water-oriented recreation due to increased crowds, the closure of the race course area and the use of portions of the open water basins for berthing vessels. Public benefits to balance these impacts were identified and are part of this amendment.
Staff feels that the public benefits proposed as part of the America’s Cup Amendment are commensurate with the size and duration of the event.
The key issues raised at the February meeting were: impacts of the America’s Cup Events on water recreation access, the shed removal at Pier 2 and long-term development rights.
The deal between the Port, the City and the Event Authority has eliminated all long-term development rights associated with the America’s Cup Events.
We came to an agreement with regard to the shed removal at Pier 2. We have March 2015 as the shed removal date.
To the extent that the use of the open water basins has an impact on recreational access, we looked for a commensurate public benefit to balance that out.
We tried to reduce the impacts of the use of the open water basins so that not all of the open water basins are used and not all of the open water basins that are used are filled to their entirety.
The larger America’s Cup permit that will be coming before the Commission in June will address the broader issues of water-oriented recreation access.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution #2012-05 that will amend the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to allow the temporary use of the open water basins to berth vessels associated with the 34th America’s Cup Events.
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt the resolution for Bay Plan Amendment 4-11, the America’s Cup Amendment.
MOTION: Commissioner Addiego moved the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Chiu.
VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 20-0-0 with Commissioner Addiego, Apodaca, Butt, Gilmore, Chiu, Gibbs, Jordan Hallinan, Hicks, McGrath, Moy, Nelson, Pine, Randolph, Sartipi, Sears, Vasquez, Techel, Wagenknecht, Ziegler and Vice Chair Halsted voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions.
Commissioner McGrath commented: I am going to support this motion. The Event Authority and the City of San Francisco have made provisions to minimize the impact and provide access along the shoreline and to leave legacy improvements.
Commissioner Nelson stated: Regarding the update from the City on impacts from the race course, I just wanted to make sure that those issues are not within the scope of this Special Area Plan Amendment.
I don’t care whether this briefing happens before or after a vote. I just want to make sure that we’re going to get that today.
Commissioner Ziegler commented: How are the mitigation measures secured or agreed to; procedurally, how does that work?
Ms. Lowe responded: If the Port doesn’t comply and the Event Authority doesn’t comply, then they are in violation of our regulations.
9. Staff Recommendation on a Contract with the Port of San Francisco for Planning Processes in Fisherman’s Wharf and the Northeastern Waterfront required by the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan. Vice Chair Halsted stated: Item 9, which is Commission Consideration of a Contract with the Port of San Francisco to provide funding for the Commission’s staff costs for participating in planning processes that may lead to further amendments of the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan. Lindy Lowe will make the staff presentation.
Ms. Lowe presented the following: Item # 9 is the authorization of the Executive Director to execute a contract with the Port of San Francisco to provide up to $100,000 to the Commission for its staff costs for participating in three planning processes that will develop possible amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan.
The planning processes will occur in the Fisherman’s Wharf, Northeastern Waterfront geographic areas as well as a process to address historic resources on Port lands.
Some of the tasks involved in the work are as follows: creating a working group to work on planning processes and developing a design implementation and financing plan for the replacement of the open water basin between Pier 35 and China Basin and analyzing the issues that arise in both studies. These issues include historic resources, fill removal, maritime and public access and other issues that arise. The staff also recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to amend the contract or enter into any contracts necessary to expend the funds as long as the amendment does not involve substantial changes in either scope or amount of the contract.
Vice Chair Halsted asked for public comment on this item. There was no public comment.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiu moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. The motion passed by a show of hands (20-0-0) with no abstentions or opposition.
10. Consideration of AB 57 and Possible Vote. Vice Chair Halsted stated: Item 10 is the Commission’s consideration of AB 57, which would affect the Commission’s representation on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Tim Eichenberg will make the staff presentation.
Mr. Eichenberg presented the following: I am here to talk about AB 57. A staff report has been prepared in case the Commission wishes to take a position on this bill.
This bill enlarges the MTC from 19 to 21 members, from 16 to 18 voting members, to reflect growth in population of Alameda and Santa Clara counties since the MTC was created in 1970.
This bill also limits MTC membership to no more than 3 residents from any one county.
It was amended in March of 2012 to require BCDC’s representative on the MTC to be from the City of San Francisco and that that representative be approved by the Mayor of San Francisco.
Currently there is no restriction on who the BCDC representative is on the MTC.
We have included pros and cons on this legislation in your staff analysis.
Vice Chair Halsted commented: This whole thing feels like sausage to me. I have tried religiously to be a regional representative and not a San Francisco representative.
This came up as a result of conversations in December. Because BCDC is required to have its offices in San Francisco, several new Commissioners misunderstood that and thought that I was saying that BCDC needed to be a San Francisco BCDC representative on MTC.
In fact, for most of the past 25 years, the BCDC representative has been a San Franciscan, not all though.
MTC has not commented on this piece of the legislation. I would like San Francisco to have good representation because our infrastructure for transit is critical for the future and I would feel very badly if we lost support for that.
I can’t get enthusiastic about BCDC losing control of its appointment. I’m not sure our opinion on this makes any difference to anybody.
Commissioner Randolph added: I would agree with Vice Chair Halsted’s perspective. It’s really hard to see how this benefits BCDC in any way. In fact, I think it’s pretty inappropriate.
Our representation on MTC as a body is from the institutional perspective of BCDC and our interest is the Bay. We’re not representing any jurisdiction.
Commissioner Nelson commented: I completely agree with Commissioner Randolph and the Vice Chair. It strikes me that given our work on adaptation issues and the sustainable community work that is going to be coming down the road, we’re entering a really important period for BCDC and for MTC and the collaboration between our agencies. I am troubled.
Does the staff have any sense of what percentage of Commissioners and Alternates would be excluded from eligibility if this were to pass?
Perhaps two-thirds, we don’t have a high percentage of San Francisco residents. I find that really troubling.
I’d like to hear what the other Commissioners have to say on this. I think we should take a position on this.
Commissioner Vasquez spoke: I agree with Commissioner Randolph. To lose control of our appointment is somewhat of a slap in the face.
The voice of BCDC should come from a Commissioner on BCDC. I wouldn’t be supporting this and would probably take it to my own board to oppose it.
Commissioner Wagenknecht addressed the Commission: Where is this in the process at this point?
Mr. Eichenberg responded: It passed the Assembly and it’s now before the Senate Committee on Transportation. It will be considered in June at some point.
This requirement was added in the Senate because they wanted to make sure that San Francisco county had three members, along with Santa Clara and Alameda counties, so they added that provision.
Commissioner Wagenknecht added: This would not necessarily be a BCDC representative at that point. It would be a San Francisco representative and that may be appropriate but that’s not our job to provide that.
MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved to oppose this requirement in the legislation, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez.
Commissioner Apodaca commented: I think overall the legislation is needed to bring equality throughout the region but just not on BCDC’s back. And so I think that the position that the Commission should actually make is to oppose unless amended in regards to this requirement of being from San Francisco.
Commissioner Wagenknecht added: I’d be willing to modify the motion to that.
Commissioner Vasquez responded: And I’ll second that.
Commissioner Jordan Hallinan commented: It makes sense to at least have a process to determine who the regional representation should be but this whole thing about the San Francisco thing make me think, one, what country are we in, and the other is, this explains a lot about what I read about what happens in Sacramento.
I am completely aghast.
Commissioner Chiu commented: I probably share the perspective of our Vice Chair. As the San Francisco representative representing the City that does support this legislation, I will be supporting it but that being said, I absolutely agree with all of the other comments.
I wish that BCDC had been better consulted. I do think it’s a very awkward position for some of us; but frankly, not a very good position for BCDC.
Vice Chair Halsted stated: We have a motion and a second and we really need to be clear about the intent of the motion so that we don’t have any questions about it in the future.
Commissioner Apodaca added: I was going to ask that staff make contact with Assembly Member Wieckowski’s office regarding these changes as well as to bring it to his attention.
Commissioner McGrath commented: I do think it’s important to explain our rationale and our reasoning.
The BCDC representative brings a regional perspective reflecting the state’s interest in that. I think we should make that distinction.
We should just oppose the amendment so that BCDC can pick its best representative with a regional perspective, leaving to the Legislature how the other regional perspectives are determined at MTC.
Commissioner Pine commented: I share the sentiments of others that the problem shouldn’t be solved through BCDC.
Commissioner Wagenknecht stated: I would like to have a precise motion so that –-
Vice Chair Halsted added: I think that’s a very good idea. I would like the motion to reflect our interest in making sure that our representatives are regional representatives.
Commissioner Jordan Hallinan commented: I would like to know on what they came up with on the rest of it in terms of representation.
Outside of the appointment being approved by the Mayor of San Francisco, from your perspective being on the Commission, do you think everything else about how they came about with the distribution of representatives is reasonable?
Vice Chair Halsted responded: Well, I wasn’t happy with the process because it didn’t include the most of MTC in talking about it when the original thing was put together.
Commissioner Jordan Hallinan continued: My question to the rest of the Commission is, do we actually support it except for the amendment?
If there’s a better way, we could just say, we oppose this and we think you ought to go back and do it again and do it better.
Mr. Eichenberg stated: The Commission could take a position of “oppose unless amended” and that would show that if they don’t amend it the Commission opposes it; if they make the amendment, then the Commission no longer has a position on the bill because it sounds like the Commission believes that it shouldn’t be trying to decide how a sister agency is formulated but doesn’t want to have that discussion affecting BCDC.
Commissioner Jordan Hallinan stated: We can opine on being forced to have the Mayor of San Francisco appoint a BCDC member. That is definitely within our purview but how the rest of MTC gets constituted, I really don’t think is within our purview.
Frankly, it probably really doesn’t matter whether or not we agree with how it came about as a body.
Mr. Eichenberg commented: A motion to instruct staff to send a letter on behalf of BCDC to the State Legislature opposing AB 57 unless it is amended to retain BCDC’s flexibility to select its own representative on MTC reflecting its regional jurisdiction but also agreeing that San Francisco, San Mateo and Alameda County should have equal representation as provided in the bill.
Commissioner Nelson added: I think we don’t want to give the impression that it is the Commission’s intention to deny San Francisco an additional representative.
So, Tim, maybe the answer there is to say, that the Commission wants to retain control over its own representative but that the Commission has no recommendation regarding how MTC should best achieve regional balance. We just don’t want it to happen on our backs.
Mr. Eichenberg stated: The motion would be to instruct staff to send a letter on behalf of BCDC opposing AB 57 unless it is amended to retain BCDC’s flexibility in selecting its own representative on MTC reflecting its regional jurisdiction and that BCDC has no recommendation on how MTC should achieve regional balance in general.
MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht stated, I would so move, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez. A hand vote was taken. The motion passed 19-1-0.
11. Strategic Plan Status Report. Executive Director Goldbeck informed the Commissioners that the latest version of the status report on the Commission’s Strategic Plan was mailed to you on March 23rd.
You have achieved almost all of the goals in your Strategic Plan and the plan is getting fairly long in the tooth.
We thought that when a permanent Executive Director is appoionted, that would be the appropriate time to have preparation of a new Strategic Plan.
So we’re deferring that for now. There is no action that needs to be taken on this matter unless someone has any requests, comments or suggestions.
12. New Business. No new business was discussed.
13. Old Business. No old business was discussed.
14. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Vice Chair Halsted the meeting adjourned in memory of Peter Douglas at 2:16 p.m.
STEVE GOLDBECK Acting Executive Director
Approved with no corrections at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of May 3, 2012
R. ZACHARY WASSERMAN, Chair