Minutes of May 3, 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 1:10 p.m.

2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Wasserman, Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Addiego, Apodaca, Bates, Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Chiu, Fossum (represented by Alternate Pemberton), Jordan Hallinan, Hicks, McGrath, Moy, Pine, Sartipi, Sears, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Techel, 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), Contra Costa County (Gioia), Senate Rules Committee (Nelson), and Governors Appointee (Randolph).

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

Mr. Coleman addressed the Commission: Mr. Coleman thanked Acting Executive Director Goldbeck and Commissioner McGrath for their participation in the DMC meeting which was attended by over 300 people.

A BPC briefing on ballast water will be held on June 7th. This meeting will be in Oakland from 8:00 to 11:30 a.m.

4. Approval of Minutes of the April 5, 2012 Meeting. Chair Wasserman entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of April 5, 2012 meeting.

MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted. The motion passed by a voice vote with Commissioner Vierra abstaining.

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

a. Commissioner Appointments. Commissioner Sartipi has appointed Dan McElhinney, his Chief Deputy at Caltrans, to serve as his alternate. I am sure the Commission joins me in welcoming Mr. McElhinney to the Commission.

b. Executive Director Position. The Selection Committee is in the active outreach phase of the BCDC Executive Director Search and we will be meeting with the Bay Planning Coalition and Save the Bay and a number of staff members to solicit their ideas about the qualifications for the new permanent Executive Director for the Commission.

Tomorrow is the date when the full applications are due to be fully and optimally considered.

We are hoping to hold preliminary interviews from May 29th through June 8th.

c. Next BCDC Meeting. We will not need to hold our meeting on May 17th. Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on June 7th here at the Ferry Building. We will take up the following matters:

(1) We will hold a public hearing and possible vote on work related to the America’s Cup races.

(2) We will hold a public hearing and possible vote on construction of ramps on Yerba Buena Island connecting to the Bay Bridge.

(3) We will also receive a briefing on the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan. I have been having some discussions and expect to have a few more on AB 57 to see if we may be able to achieve some amendment which would be more acceptable to our Commission.

d. Ex-Parte Communications. The last item is ex-parte communications. I did receive a letter and some background material from the Ordent Development Company concerning a potential imposition of an administrative fine as part of an enforcement proceeding. I did report this to the Executive Director and we are in the process of reviewing a recommendation on those administrative fines.

Vice Chair Halsted reported: I spoke with some of the people associated with the America’s Cup about the scheduling of their hearing.

Commissioner Pine stated: I did meet with the Port of Redwood City to tour their facility and understand their application that is before us today.

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

a. SB 1149. Senator DeSaulnier has just amended SB 1149 that addresses the Joint Policy Committee. The changes are far-reaching and would affect this Commission. We are still analyzing the bill, but among other things it would establish a new 15-member elected Bay Area Regional Commission that would take over the responsibilities of the JPC.

While the BCDC Commission would still exist, the 4 agencies, including BCDC, would become departments under the Board, which would both provide and control the agencies’ budgets.

Amendments to the Bay Plan would be subject to review by the Regional Commission for consistency with the plans of the other agencies.

A copy of the bill is provided in your packets. Staff will analyze the bill and agendize it for your consideration. The first hearing on the bill is next Tuesday in the Senate Transportation and Housing Subcommittee, chaired by Senator DeSaulnier.

b. Staff Reports. I would like to call your attention to several reports that we included in our last mailing to you. The first is a status report on Delta issues. If you have any questions, please direct them to Jessica Davenport.

The second is the staff’s biannual report on regional issues and the Commission’s planning program. If you have any questions, please direct them to Joe LaClair.

The last contains amendments to your regulations which you should use to replace the appropriate sections of the regulations in your Commission binders. If you have any questions, please direct them to Tim Eichenberg.

Commissioner McGrath commented: I’ve looked at the summary of SB 1149 and there is a general purpose of sustainability of transportation funding in it. But it is not clear to me whether the intention here is to establish or is it just to coordinate transportation planning and air quality planning in terms of – finance-wise there is also a land use hook at some point – or we know?

Executive Director Goldbeck responded: Since the amendment just occurred and we knew that he was working on something but hadn’t heard the specifics, it’s a matter of speculation but his bill was intended to try to improve regional coordination and the functioning of the JPC.

7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Goldbeck stated that on April 20th the Commissioners were sent the listing of the administrative matters staff was prepared to act upon. This would consist of the work on San Francisco Waterfront Piers 30/32 for the America’s Cup races. We thought this would be a major permit but has been scaled back so much that it can be handled administratively. Brad McCrea was available to respond to any questions you may have about matters on the listing.

8. Public Hearing and Possible Vote on Application No. 2012.006.00 – the Port of Redwood City to Reconstruct Wharves 1 and 2, Install a Shoreline Protection System, Construct a Longshoreman’s Building and Associated Parking, and Upgrade Existing Public Access Facilities at 675 Seaport Boulevard, in the City of Redwood City, San Mateo County. Chair Wasserman announced that Item #8 was a public hearing and possible vote on proposed work to replace Port of Redwood City Wharves 1 & 2. Jaime Michaels made the staff presentation on this matter.

Ms. Michaels reported the following: On April 20th you were mailed a staff summary of the Port of Redwood City’s application to reconstruct Wharves 1 and 2, upgrade a shoreline protection system and construct support facilities at an area located upland of the wharves.

As proposed the project is located in your Bay and 100 foot shoreline band jurisdictions and the Bay Plan designates the site as a port priority use area and the site is also identified in the Seaport Plan.

The project would replace a 50,000 square foot wharf with one measuring approximately 36,500 square feet.

The proposed shoreline protection system would involve placing fill at a 9,100 hundred square foot area of the Bay.

The project would result in a total of 46,500 square feet of Bay fill, an overall reduction in existing coverage of the Bay.

In carrying out the project the Port would also improve existing public access by removing barriers to disabled visitors and improving a public path in need of redesign.

The Port has provided staff with information to clarify and resolve a few issues noted in the Staff Summary.

First, the Port prepared an inundation map which will be shown today as part of their presentation.

Also, the Port provided staff with a survey indicating that proposed demolition would not impact a special status bat species and mitigation for this is no longer needed.

The proposed project raises seven primary issues.

The Commission should consider if the project would be consistent with the following: one, your law and policies regarding Port priority use areas and Bay fill; two, policies in the Seaport Plan regarding the Port of Redwood City and Bay Plan policies concerning ports; three, the Bay Plan policies regarding safety of fills; the Bay Plan policies regarding shoreline protection; five, the Bay Plan policies regarding climate change; six, the Bay Plan policies regarding fish, other aquatic organisms and wildlife; and seven, the Bay Plan policies regarding public access.

Mr. Giari commented: I’m Mike Giari, the Director of the Port of Redwood City. This is a major permit for BCDC but it’s also a major permit for the Port of Redwood City.

The Port of Redwood City is approximately 120 acres on the deep draft Redwood City Channel which is authorized to 30 feet deep.

We expect by the end of our fiscal year this June to have 30 vessel calls in our port and our tonnage will be at approximately 1.3 million tons.

Wharves 1 and 2 were some of the first waterfront facilities built at the Port and their age is approximately 60 to 65 years.

The current use of the Port is for inbound construction materials.

The purpose of undertaking this project is to keep this facility in operation which has reached the end of its useful life.

The proposed project will entail the removal and replacement of the existing wooden wharf and piling structure with pre-stressed concrete piling and deck structure.

This is a design/build project and the 35 percent plans and specifications were approved by the Redwood City Port Commission at their meeting last week.

The final construction should be completed by late next summer, July/August of 2013.

Design/build tends to streamline the process so that we can get the new wharf built sooner and it also minimizes potential conflicts between the engineer and the contractor who is building the project.

There will be a new Longshoreman’s building constructed for the workers at the Port who handle the ships. Then there will be construction of a new seawall and the shoreline protection that goes with that seawall. This wall is designed to meet sea level rise until the year 2060.

The wharf is also being designed to meet the Port of Long Beach criteria and this is state-of-the-art seismic criteria for waterfront construction.

Mr. Trenkwalder commented: The Port had a number of project goals that included: one, a flexible wharf design so it could be used for break bulk material; and two, the use of Port of Long Beach seismic criteria.

Insofar as the design of the wharf is concerned we look at both operational and seismic conditions.

We had a 50-year design life for this project and we looked at sea level rise using the BCDC mean value and tied this into what would be a 100-year tide event.

Mr. Giari commented: The most important project benefit for the Port is that it is going to keep us in business.

We are seeing some recovery in the construction industry with many projects underway and many projects planned.

The adaptation we’ve used with the construction of the seawall is important to the Port and to BCDC in terms of addressing climate change and sea level rise.

There will also be seismic monitoring equipment installed in the new wharf and it is part of a regional project to have an array of these seismic monitoring devices around the Bay.

The public access improvements are going to occur in the recreational public access area that already exists at the Port.

Mr. Knight addressed the Commission: We at Save the Bay do encourage you to approve this permit. A healthy Bay is central to our region’s economy and quality of life.

Mr. Coleman spoke: The Bay Planning Commission encourages your support of this item. This strategic plan by the Port of Redwood City is critical and wharves 1 and 2 allow for the economic activity to grow in this region.

MOTION: Vice-Chair Halsted moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Commissioner Wagenknecht.

Commissioner Moy inquired: I’d like to know if we’ve approved any permits of this nature without our Design/Review Committee going through it. If we approve this permit will they have a chance to review it at the final stages?

Ms. Michaels answered: We did not bring the public access component of this project to your Design/Review Board because the access areas have already been looked at by the Design/Review Board and already approved in other BCDC permits.

But the staff will be looking at the Port’s final plans for public access and permits. And we will be approving it at the staff level on your behalf.

We have not approved other projects on a design/build basis. I believe this would be precedent setting as you have stated Commissioner Moy.

Acting Director Goldbeck commented: The Design/Review Board looks at the design features of projects and in this case what they’re doing is cleaning up impediments to the design that was already approved by the Design/Review Board.

There really wasn’t a design issue to take to them.

Commissioner Ziegler stated: Were there any additional comments on fish impacts?

Ms. Michaels replied: We are planning to address that in the recommendation part of the meeting.

Commissioner Ziegler further inquired: How much of the project costs are related to seawall construction anticipating sea level rise? Is there a seawall that already exists, and if so, is this replacing that?

Mr. Trenkwalder responded: We did not break out the sea level rise cost associated with the project. There is an existing berm and to build up this berm was roughly nine to ten feet so we put all the fill for the new wall back behind that berm to try and mitigate Bay fill.

Chair Wasserman asked: Would you describe the bubble wrap for the pile driving to protect the fish?

Mr. Trenkwalder answered: The bubble curtain that would be put around this has been used in the Bay quite a bit on a number projects that we’ve been involved in.

Commissioner Pine asked: What does the seawall really achieve? Wouldn’t the water just kind of move past that and flood the backwater area?

Mr. Trenkwalder responded: Actually, no. The wall itself is a concrete wall and it’s three-tenths of a foot above a maximum 100-year event plus a storm surge.

There will be very few cases, if any, where water moves past that wall.

Commissioner Pine inquired: What’s on the side of the seawall on the adjacent property?

Mr. Trenkwalder answered: As the sea level rise occurs and as other projects become available, that will then be addressed at those times.

Mr. Giari stated: As Commissioner Pine pointed out, it’s a 920-foot-long seawall and we have a waterfront that’s longer than this, so, what do you do with the rest of the waterfront?

The answer to that is that this is going to have to be done incrementally over time. This will give us a base to design other improvements along the waterfront.

Executive Director Goldbeck commented: Commissioner Pine makes a good point. BCDC policies require that major projects and planning for the shoreline address sea level rise but we can’t force a project proponent to make his neighbors do the same.

That is one reason why your climate change policies call for a regional strategy.

Commissioner McGrath commented: What’s not to like? You have a number of improvements that are difficult to find funding for and very expensive.

There is a very credible and sensible climate change approach and you do have to do these things incrementally.

Ms. Michaels gave the staff recommendation: The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the project as conditioned. Special conditions include: a requirement to improve public access facilities at a nearby site within Port boundaries and under its management, special Condition 2C requires the Port to conduct pile driving in a manner that minimizes sound impacts to Green Sturgeon.

Commission staff has been working with National Marine Fisheries Service and it has informed us that it plans to issue an informal or a formal consultation before project commencement.

The special condition in our recommendation also requires the Port to provide this consultation to staff before the project starts.

If the consultation results in a substantively different set of restrictions, the permit issued for the project would need to be amended.

Please note that Special Condition 2C states that NMFS will issue a, quote/unquote, informal consultation.

Since NMFS may issue a formal consultation, this language should be corrected to read, informal or formal.

Other special conditions ensure that the Port will apply measures to protect resources.

Special Condition 2D requires the Port to provide the Commission’s Engineering Criteria Review Board with a seismic instrumentation plan for its review and approval.

The Port has provided this plan and the ECRB has approved it.

If the ECRB-approved seismic criteria for the project for the design/build phase change, the Port will return to the ECRB for its review and concurrence.

The Port’s project includes measures for adapting to future sea level rise and flood conditions.

In addition, Special Condition 2F requires a vertical extension of the new seawall if sea level reaches an elevation when combined with the 100 year tide, the 100 year flood and significant wave height overtopping and flooding would occur at the site.

As conditioned, the staff believes that the project is consistent with your law and policies regarding Port priority use areas, Bay fill, the Seaport Plan regarding the Port of Redwood City, and the Bay Plan policies regarding ports, safety of fills, shoreline protection, climate change, fish and other aquatic organisms and wildlife, and public access.

Therefore, the staff recommends that the Commission adopt the recommendation as conditioned and as corrected.

Chair Wasserman added: And as corrected, is the recommendation acceptable to the Board?

Mr. Giari responded: Yes it is.

Chair Wasserman continued: I would entertain a motion to adopt the recommendation and the findings contained in the staff report.

MOTION: Commissioner Pine moved approval of the staff recommendation, seconded by Commissioner Addiego. A roll call vote was taken.

VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 18-0-0 with Commissioners Addiego, Apodaca, Bates, Gilmore, Chiu, Pemberton, Jordan Hallinan, McGrath, Moy, Pine, Sartipi, Sears, Vasquez, Techel, Vierra, Wagenknecht, Vice-Chair Halsted and Chair Wasserman voting “YES,” no “NO” votes and no abstentions.

9. Briefing on Plan Bay Area, the Region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy. Chair Wasserman announced that Item #9 was a briefing on Plan Bay Area, the Region’s Sustainable Communities Strategy being prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Joe LaClair made the staff presentation followed by representatives from MTC and ABAG.

Chief Planner LaClair reported: The Association of Bay Area Governments and The Metropolitan Transportation Commission are the principal authors of Plan Bay Area, the region’s first sustainable community strategy being prepared pursuant to SB 375.

The other Joint Policy Committee agencies, BCDC and the Air District are also participating in the preparation of the SCS, but not as the principal authors.

We have identified two principal issues for your consideration today. One, is to consider the potential vulnerabilities of transportation investments in priority development areas to sea level rise and storms.

And the other is, consistency with your land use designations and policies in the Bay Plan.

Ms. Miriam Chion presented the following: We at ABAG have been working on the sustainable communities strategy for more than a year.

We released a preliminary report in March and we’ll be releasing the revised version, the final draft, on May 11th.

Some of the key components of the jobs/housing connection strategy are: it prepares the region for job growth, it includes transportation choices that can increase access to jobs and services and most importantly, the alignment of transportation investments with housing growth and land use planning.

The jobs/housing connection is a 30 year strategy providing a footprint of land use patterns.

Based on an analysis of recent economic trends of how the region is performing in the national context, this is a summary of where we think we’re going to be by 2040.

Although we expect healthy growth in jobs for the region, it will be less than in the past.

The priority development areas are proposed to absorb a significant component of the growth.

We are experiencing population growth, but it’s much more modest than what we have seen in previous decades.

Two-thirds of our population growth in 2040 will be people over 65.

About 80 percent of the new housing is proposed to be in priority development areas and these vary widely. The bulk of these houses would be primarily multi-family housing, would be wood frame and between two and five stories.

A large proportion of the growth will not be just in the large cities, but also in the medium-sized ones as well.

We expect that 98 percent of the growth will be within urban boundaries. The great value of this is the retention of our open spaces.

The four major categories addressed in our report will be: jobs, affordable housing, complete communities and open space and agricultural land.

Ms. Brenda Dix said: I’ll be walking you through the draft transportation investment strategy that MTC has developed.

Plan Bay Area is a 28-year plan and we expect 277 billion dollars in revenues to be available to the region.

Of these monies, $186 billion is committed revenue based on MTC’s policies.

Economy, equity and the environment are the three E’s that guide our investments and play out in all six of the strategies that will be presented.

Our first investment strategy is to close the greenhouse gas emissions gap. Our second investment strategy is a fix-it-first approach. This ensures that we are investing our dollars to maintain the system that we’ve already built and keeping it operating and in good condition.

The third investment strategy is the One Bay Area Grant framework, which is a new grant framework that we have not seen before. It aims to reward jurisdictions that produce housing near transit to create healthy communities.

Our fourth investment strategy is to fund high performers.

The fifth investment strategy is squeezing more efficiency out of our existing system, which is very similar to the fix-it-first approach.

Our last investment strategy is the transit sustainability framework. Funding will be set aside to advance the goals of the transit sustainability project.

We are considering sea level rise in our sustainability planning strategies.

We are interested in hearing from the Commission as to what else we can do to incorporate sea level rise or other Bay issues into the plan to make sure the SCS is consistent with your plan.

Chair Wasserman commented: This is a process that is subject to more comments though we are moving ahead with one alternative; there will be several other alternatives considered in the EIR and likely the final alternative might be quite different from the original proposed alternative.

Commissioner McGrath commented: I attended a meeting in Berkeley which was attended by a number of Tea Party members who saw this as a plot to take away all of our freedoms.

In terms of the incentives to try to get to a more compact urban form, they’re pretty small potatoes compared to the overall package.

Ms. Dix stated: We identified the high performers that we absolutely want to fund, the middle performers are subject to the county priority list and then the low performers were dropped off.

There is full documentation in exactly what was included in our cost benefit analysis, which included public health, the CO2 emission reductions from the project, time spent in commute and the monetary costs of that transit mode; there were a lot of things that went into it.

Something that was more tangible to most people was the performance targets. Those were a little easier for people to understand.

Commissioner McGrath continued: The implications for this Commission are that there are a number of freeway networks that are in harm’s way in terms of sea level rise.

We do believe we’ve put in place a set of policies that understood that and understood that the ideal mechanisms were going to be regional. Are protections of these facilities part of the current budget thinking?

Ms. Dix replied: It currently is not part of the budget. It was hard to identify a budget without a plan in place since we haven’t done any regional adaptation planning. We redo these plans every four years so there are plenty of opportunities to revise as we move forward.

Executive Director Goldbeck added: Among the JPC members there was an understanding that just doing the SCS in the time allotted was a huge challenge. There was agreement that the next SCS needs to start integrating all the different agencies’ concerns and priorities.

Vice-Chair Halsted commented: I think it would be really helpful if this Commission could weigh in on the issues of greatest concern to it.

Chair Wasserman stated: The projections for two cities stand out; the projections for Dublin and Brisbane.

The housing unit increase for Dublin is 132 percent to over 36,000 houses where it’s now almost 16,000.

And Brisbane has a 264 percent increase from 13,000 to 16,940. The Brisbane increase may well have an impact on what we look at because it’s on the Bay shore, not so much Dublin.

Ms. Chion added: For both places the very high numbers were originally based on some of the local input that we received. We will be releasing revised numbers in a week and there is agreement that the original local input that they provided was too high.

Chair Wasserman commented: As has been said, this will be an evolving process. We need to figure out how we’re going to increase attention and thought on the adaptation technologies because most of the effort has been on prevention, the greenhouse gases and related ones. What has not gotten attention yet is the adaptation technologies that we are going to have to develop for our built environment.

Commissioner Bates commented: There was discussion at the Air District about the number of people who are actually working at home and the projections. We were told yesterday that it was two percent and that turned out that’s not the case; it’s a lot more. It’s approximately four percent now and it’s expected to go to eight percent. This is a trend that’s under counted and underrepresented. It’s important for us to go on record that we have major problems with sea level rise; particularly, related to transportation – the airports being number one. The very significant vacancy that we have in office and industrial space will absorb a significant component of our employment growth.

Commissioner Bates added: This plan has been underway for a long time and it’s going to be increasingly difficult to make major changes. It’s important for everyone to recognize that some of the issues that may not be in the EIR directly can be as mitigation and alternatives.

Vice-Chair Halsted commented: I would like to ask that we make a motion to ask MTC to tell us how they plan to begin to address sea level rise in our transportation infrastructure.

Commissioner Jordan Hallinan spoke: Why would we not be starting with the existing facilities? Why would we not protect what is already there first?

Ms. Dix responded: When we do our EIR analysis we will also be overlaying the sea level maps on the existing conditions. Commissioner Jordan Hallinan continued: I thought the first flow of money was going to go to these other projects that you talked about and that protection of existing facilities would be something that would happen much later.

Ms. Dix answered: The funding that is identified in the Plan is both for the maintenance of the existing infrastructure, which could potentially include adaptation for sea level rise. Those maintenance projects aren’t as well identified as the new construction projects.

Commissioner Ziegler commented: An issue that is somewhat troubling is what happens de facto without a real regional response in place in terms of sea level rise? If the de facto response is, build it higher and protection of what we have, this is the least preferable adaptation strategy. This points out the need to get something in place that is a real regional response where we have to make some very difficult, expensive, long-range decisions, all of which we can’t make with the considerations we have in place now. The Joint Policy Committee has commissioned a study on resiliency and energy alternatives and that study is moving forward. I would suggest that the final plan have a parking lot or next stages so that both commissions that are authoring it clearly recognize that there are these other issues that have not been fully integrated.

10. Briefing on the ART Project. Chair Wasserman stated that Item #10 is a briefing on the status of the Commission’s Adapting to Rising Tides project. Lindy Lowe presented on behalf of the staff.

Ms. Lowe presented the following: The ART Project is a collaborative effort being led by BCDC to help the region better understand how sea level rise and storm events will affect the future of our shoreline and how we can begin to address the challenges that we will face in the future.

The goal of the ART Project is to increase preparedness and resilience in Bay area communities while protecting ecosystems and community services.

We selected the portion of Alameda County between Emeryville and Union City for the Adapting to Rising Tides Project area for the pilot project.

The two key questions addressed by this project are: how will sea level rise and storm events affect the future of Bay area communities, infrastructure, ecosystems and economy and what approaches can we pursue, both locally and regionally, to address these challenges and reduce and manage these risks?

We hope that the information gathered and lessons learned from this project will make it easier for future agencies to carry out future planning efforts.

We developed two sub-committees of working group members; a technical sub-committee and a communications sub-committee to help us with the mapping and shoreline conditions aspect of the project as well as how to communicate our findings and our information within the sub-region and outside of the sub-region.

The project includes the analysis of 12 categories of community assets: airport, community land-use facilities and services, contaminated lands, energy pipelines and telecom, hazardous material sites, ground transportation, parks and recreation, natural shorelines, seaports, storm water, structural shorelines and wastewater.

Commissioner Gilmore commented: When you’re talking about transportation vulnerabilities I’m assuming that that includes the Oakland Airport.

Ms. Lowe responded: Within the FHWA Project we did not include the Oakland Airport. But the Oakland Airport and the seaport are partners in the larger Adapting to Rising Tides Project and we’ve been working with them fairly closely to develop the impacts assessment and now we’re moving into defining their vulnerabilities.

And they’ve been responding to survey questions to get their best professional judgment on those issues as well as reviewing our desktop analysis of their vulnerabilities.

We will be pivoting into developing strategies to address the vulnerabilities through adaptation responses in the Fall.

Commissioner Gilmore stated: I know it’s a long process and we’re not going to get any real hard answers but it seems that these issues are on the radar and you are working on it and it’s part of the plan.

Ms. Lowe answered: Absolutely, yes. The next step includes three components: an evaluation of projected impacts, a determination of vulnerability and identification of risks. And this is for all 12 asset categories.

We developed new, refined sea level rise maps within the sub-region. The new maps depict areas that may be potentially subjected to high tide inundation or storm event flooding with the 16 and 55 inch sea level rise scenarios.

We also had the Pacific Institute conduct a social vulnerability analysis of the project area and identify the demographic characteristics of the communities within the project area. There are approximately 800,000 people within the ART project area. Various populations and areas are at risk in both the 16 and the 55 inch sea level rise scenarios.In addition, we have a NOAA coastal fellow writing a white paper on equity issues related to climate change impacts.

An economic analysis of park and recreation facilities was completed for the project. The analysis looked at total loss because it’s very difficult to identify with any certainty lesser scales of loss of within the parklands.

The next steps for the Project are to complete the vulnerability and risk assessment with our partners and present that material and receive feedback and that’s happening right now.

We are also developing adaptation strategies, options and the development of an evaluation for adaptation strategies. This will be happening over the summer.

One of the vulnerabilities with the categories we are looking at is financing. In many cases there is no money to do adaptation planning.

Commissioner McGrath commented: The social equity issues involved in this process are absolutely profound and they go to the most vulnerable people who are at risk to be devastated economically and not be able to recover from this devastation.

Ms. Lowe responded: We also recognize that some of the flooding impacts that may be most significant and happen earliest will probably not be along the shoreline.

We are working with Alameda County and a few of the cities that are concerned about this issue. Social equity is a significant component of what it is we’re looking at throughout the whole project.

Executive Director Goldbeck commented: And that is a good example of the reason why it wouldn’t have made sense for BCDC solely to be doing the regional change adaptation to sea level rise because we really have to look at a much greater area than encompasses your jurisdiction.

The innovative nature of this is working at the local level, the regional level, the state level and the federal level.

11. New Business. No new business was discussed.

12. Old Business. No old business was discussed.

13. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Vasquez seconded by Commissioner McGrath the meeting adjourned at 3:16 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Acting Executive Director

Approved with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of June 7, 2012