Minutes of June 7, 2012 Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Wasserman 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 (represented by Alternate Fergusson), Bates, Brown (represented by Alternate Carrillo), Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Chiu, Fossum (represented by Alternate Pemberton), Gibbs, Jordan Hallinan, Hicks, McGrath, Nelson, Pine, Sartipi, Sears, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Techel, and Ziegler. Assembly representative Lisa Feldstein was also present.
Chair Wasserman announced that a quorum was present.
Not present were: Santa Clara County (Cortese), Department of Finance (Finn), Contra Costa County (Gioia), Governor’s Appointees (Moy and Randolph), Secretary of Resources (Vierra), and Napa County (Wagenknecht).
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.
Seeing no speakers, Chair Wasserman moved on to Item four, Approval of the Minutes.
4. Approval of Minutes of the May 3, 2012 Meeting. Chair Wasserman had one correction to the minutes. He commented that the minutes should state he chaired the meeting rather than Vice Chair Halsted. He asked for a motion, second and affirmative vote to adopt the minutes as corrected.
MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved to approve the minutes as corrected, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted. The motion carried by voice vote with Commissioners Carrillo, Sartipi and Gibbs abstaining.
5. Report of the Chair. Chair Wasserman reported on the following:
a. Commissioner Uilkema. I am sad to report that Commissioner Uilkema from Contra Costa County recently passed away after a long illness. We will adjourn today’s meeting in her memory.
b. ECRB Appointments. The Engineering Criteria Review Board that advises us on issues related to the safety of fills and structures built on fill has a number of vacancies. The Board unanimously nominated four outstanding technical experts to fill these vacancies: Mary Comerio, an Architect; Richard Dornhelm, a Coastal Engineer; Dr. Lou M. Gilpin, a Geologist and Jack Moehle, a Structural Engineer. You have in your packets a staff report that provides the qualifications of these respected experts. Unless you object, I intend to appoint all four of them. Seeing none I will do so and file whatever paperwork is necessary.
c. Executive Director Position. Since our last meeting, we received comments from BCDC constituents and BCDC staff on the kinds of skills, attributes and experience that they think the Committee should look for in our candidates.
The first round of interviews took place last week on Monday and Friday. The next step is for the Selection Committee to meet to discuss the candidates and determine whether a second round of interviews will be conducted. If they are held we expect to hold them during the week of June 18-22.
Finalist(s) will be chosen and reference checks made before the Selection Committee has a final meeting prior to the July 19th Commission meeting, during which time we will hold a closed session to discuss the candidates.
d. Next BCDC Meeting. Our next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on June 21st. At that meeting, which will be held at the MetroCenter in Oakland, we will take up the following matters:
(1) We will consider a contract with the California Sediment Management Workgroup to conduct work on Regional Sediment Management for the Bay.
(2) We will have a briefing on the work done to address issues raised by the Commission and staff related to the Sustainable Communities Plan, Plan Bay Area.
(3) We will also have a briefing on the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan.
e. Ex-Parte Communications. Chair Wasserman asked if anyone had any ex-parte communications they wished to report?
Commissioner Pemberton stated: On Agenda Item 9, I just participated in a meeting convened by legislative staff related to the bill.
Commissioner Chiu stated: I’ve had ongoing meetings and discussions on Item 9.
Chair Wasserman stated: I participated in both public and private meetings with Senator DeSaulnier on a range of issues related to his bills including the one that is in our packet.
Commissioner Bates added: I would like to mention that there has been an Executive Committee, now being set for July 9th from 3:00 to 4:00 at the MetroCenter to discuss the bill with the Senator.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Goldbeck reported:
a. Building Move. As you know, we have been working to move the Commission’s staff offices to 390 Main, to join with MTC, the Air Board, and perhaps ABAG. However, DGS recently sent us a letter stating that the Governor has issued an Executive Order that all state agencies should move into state-owned property if they can and that there is room at the state
building in the SF Civic Center. The Chair and I co-signed a letter to DGS requesting an exemption given the importance of co-locating or being close to our partners, multi-transit hubs and the Coastal Commission who handles much of our personnel work.
Copies of these letters are in your packets. DGS has responded that the only exception that could be granted would be if a state agency had a laboratory or other programmatic need that could not be hosted in the state building. I informed DGS that I needed to confer with Chair Wasserman and the Commission prior to proceeding. The Chair has informed me that he intends to pursue this matter with the Administration.
Chair Wasserman addressed the Commission:
I have a very significant concern that the 390 Main Building will not be ready for a variety of reasons. So if we solve the issue with DGS we will continue to look at other alternative private spaces.
One of the problems of moving into the state building is, under state law, once a state agency moves into a state building, it is obligated to pay rent even if it moves out unless DGS finds a substitute for them.
Given our interest in co-locating with our partner agencies, we will also be requesting either one of two exemptions. One is to be exempted from moving into the state building and the other is if they insist that we do move in, that in the lease we have a specific provision that we can move out without being obligated to pay for it if and when we have a space we think we can relocate to with the other regional agencies.
Commissioner Bates stated: It may be a little late but I suggest that we consider doing some budget language and attempt to get that into the budget that says we’re exempt from these provisions that will allow us to move out if nothing else.
Executive Director Goldbeck added: Since we have to move out of our present offices by March of next year time is starting to get short to go through the entire process.
So, if this request is unsuccessful we will start working with DGS on moving to the state building.
b. Personnel. This will be the last meeting for Mamie Lai, our Director of Administrative and Technology Services. She will be joining MTC as Section Director of Administrative and Technical Services where she will oversee Information Technology, Facilities and Office Management, Contracting and Procurement, Risk Management and Human Resources. It is a great step up for Mamie and while we will miss her, we wish her great success in her new position.
Our longest serving staff member and valued Legal Secretary, Myrna Carter, has retired after 45 years of service and we wish her all the best in retirement.
I have a highly qualified and excellent person to replace Mamie. Sharon Louie is our Human Resources Officer at BCDC and has worked at BCDC over three decades in increasingly responsible positions. Unless you have objections, I intend to promote Sharon into Mamie’s position.
Chair Wasserman stated: There are no objections.
Executive Director Goldbeck continued: We have also found an excellent person to help our Planning staff. I would like to introduce Sarah Richmond, who obtained a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology from UC Santa Barbara and a Master of Science degree in Energy and Resources from UC, Berkeley. Ms. Richmond has two and a half years of experience as a
Geomorphologist and Hydrologist for a private consulting firm where she acted as the lead on habitat-hydrology investigations and other matters that are very applicable to BCDC. The funds for her position come from the Port of Oakland for the SF Special Area Plan work. Unless you have objections, Sarah will be joining our staff.
We also have two more unpaid interns joining our staff: Ethan Lavine is a graduate student at UC, Berkeley in the Master of City Planning Program and has an undergraduate degree from Franklin Marshall College in Government. Ethan will be assisting BCDC staff on the Adapting to Rising Tides project as a summer intern on a stipend from UC Berkeley.
Preeti Talwai is currently in the 3rd year of studies for her Bachelors of Arts in Architecture at U.C. Berkeley. She is also studying Sustainable Design and History of the Built Environment as minors. While at U.C. Berkeley, she has received numerous awards and scholarships. She will be working with BCDC’s Bay Design Analyst.
We also have two new legal interns joining our legal staff this summer, also unpaid. Craig Orbelian is a second year law student at Harvard Law School. He holds a BA in English from UCLA and he served as a legal assistant with O’Conner and Associates last year and clerked with our enforcement staff in 2010.
Finally, Andrew Winetroub is a third year law student at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. He is a graduate of distinction of the University of Kansas and interned with Jacobs Schlesinger and Sheppard in San Diego last year. He also worked for Senator John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
At your last meeting, staff updated you on your Adapting to Rising Tides project. I am happy to report that a subset of the ART project, the Transportation Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Pilot Project won two awards:
The 2012 American Planning Association California Northern: Award of Merit - Focused Issue Planning; and the 2012 Association of Environmental Professionals: Award of Merit - Environmental Resource Document.
c. SB 1149. Senator Mark DeSaulnier announced that he will not move SB 1149 that would have had far reaching impacts on BCDC and the other JPC agencies. Instead, he intends to enter into a dialogue with the JPC and other interested parties on how best to further regional governance and what legislation might be appropriate. We have also just heard that the Senator has amended his SB 848 that also addressed the JPC. We will keep you apprised of any developments and bring any proposals to you for your consideration as this dialogue evolves.
d. Warriors. You likely have seen the media reports that the Warriors basketball team is proposing to construct a new arena in SF on Piers 30-32. Since this would be subject to the SF Waterfront Special Area Plan, one of the fundamental issues you will have to consider if and when this project comes before you, is whether the mix of uses proposed will be consistent with the Public Trust. As of now the concept is just that, a concept, and until we see a project proposal, staff will not be able to advise you as to whether it is consistent with your law and policy.
That completes my report and we can move on to Item 7, consideration of administrative matters.
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. 2012.001.00 – America’s Cup Event Authority, Port of San Francisco, and the City and County of San Francisco for the 34th America’s Cup Racing Event, various locations along the San Francisco waterfront. Chair Wasserman announced that Item 8 was a public hearing and possible vote on proposed work for the America’s Cup races.
Commissioner Gibbs divulged the following: As my law firm represents the America’s Cup Event Authority I will not be participating in the discussions and am recusing myself from a vote on the matter. Commissioner Gibbs left the room.
Ming Yeung made the following staff presentation: We are bringing to you today the consideration of the major permit for the 34th America’s Cup Sailing Races that are scheduled to start in August of this year.
The Commission approved the SAP Amendment at its meeting in April and the Office of Administrative Law has approved its adoption.
The project has also undergone review by the Commission’s Design Review Board and the Port’s Waterfront Advisory Committee.
The project before you today has been scaled back from what was first presented to you in January. In total, the project would result in approximately 100,000 square feet of temporary Bay fill in the form of floating docks, gangways and mooring blocks.
A total of 2,000 square feet of permanent Bay fill would be placed for permanent public access and habitat improvement.
The project applicants are here today to provide detail on the project and the public access that would be provided as part of the project.
As outlined in your staff summary, the staff believes the proposed project raises five issues. These issues include the project’s consistency with the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan and consistency with the Commission’s policies on fill, public access, natural resources and dredging.
Ms. Rosie Spaulding of the America’s Cup Event Authority presented the following: We have two America’s Cup World Series Events scheduled for this year.
There is no longer any long-term development. We have no ACEA event programming at Crissy Field Aquatic Park, Fort Mason, Fort Baker Pier or Alcatraz. We have also reduced the scope of work at Piers 30, 32 and significantly reduced dredging.
We have also eliminated any spectator boat berthing at the Rincon Park Basin.
I have some slides to present to you to show you some of these details.
Mr. John Craig the Principal Race Officer for the America’s Cup presented the following: My job is to be on the water side of the equation. In January of 2011 we put out a course area for the races.
In January of 2012 the Coast Guard issued a Draft SLR for public comment and organized three public meetings.
We came up with three items that were of real concern for the wind surfers and the kiters. These issues were, access to the water’s edge, access to the water and a place to store their gear.
The result of those concerns has moved us forward in coming up with ways to minimize the impacts.
The sailboard storage near Crissy looks like that’s going to happen. The race area modification in 2012 will also happen. And we’ve come up with a notification system which is a VHF and a combination of social media to indicate when the course area is clear.
We were able to get the teams competing to agree to an earlier start time and have asked the Coast Guard to allow us to start the SLR going into effect at 11:00 o’clock and would be finished at 4:00 o’clock instead of 5:00 o’clock.
We’ve been able to adjust the formats so that for many of the days the full SLR will not be used and we have the potential of finishing at 2:20 on some of the days.
Commissioner McGrath asked: Are any of the legacy improvements for sailing programs still on the table and is there any level of commitment to these?
Mr. Craig answered: Yes. I think as far as the youth plan goes, there is definitely ongoing discussions with what that will be. I’m not able to comment at this point if that would include windsurfing and kite boarding. I believe that there will be a plan that will be put into place by 2013.
Mr. Mike Martin the America’s Cup Project Director for the City and County of San Francisco spoke: I will present the planning process and the impacts and mitigation measures that we have put into place to bring the events forward.
It’s been about 18 months since the City was selected as the host city. In those 18 months we have had the most comprehensive review of a waterfront event in the San Francisco Bay’s history.
The process started with a very comprehensive CEQA process that worked with a diverse group of people and interests.
We have come up with a plan that creates public access opportunities that is in keeping with the charge to maximize public use and access to the shoreline in the Bay consistent with the objectives of the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan.
We worked with the Commission and the Design Review Board on how we would try to manage this opportunity to create a new vision for the America’s Cup that really highlights this sense of place that is San Francisco.
We have tried to find ways to accentuate transit, improve transit and beef up transit.
We are going to try to accentuate bicycles and use ferries to their maximum to emphasize the waterside transportation.
We are looking at different ways to have available public access points for the events. There will also be legacy improvements. One of these will be the kayak launch at Pier 52 and a companion launch as part of the Marina Yacht Harbor Project.
Piers 30 and 32 will be the team base locations and it is an exciting thing for spectators to see the boats being worked on and being craned in and out of the water.
At Piers 27 and 29 which will be the America’s Cup Village there’s going to be increased public access at a number of these piers that isn’t available today.
We have been looking at whether or not we could have an alternate launch in place at Treasure Island around or shortly after the events. We are working through the Navy’s process on this.
Mr. Brad Benson from the Port of San Francisco staff spoke: I think the process of planning for this event has been an excellent one.
Both parties have agreed to walk away from the long-term development portion of the Host and Venue Agreement. We’re happy to say that in spite of this, the waterfront is undergoing a pretty significant transformation.
This temporary event is delivering some permanent improvements to the waterfront over a seven-mile stretch of the waterfront.
After the events we are looking at the Bayview Gateway Park as a major commitment of this project. It’s approximately a one-acre park that has been cleared through CEQA.
At Piers 19 and 23 we’ve got permanent new dedicated public access on the Pier 19 apron and Port staff is going to be undertaking the complete repair of that apron. We are also opening up Pier 23, north apron, which is going to have spectacular views of the Northeast Wharf Plaza and the cruise terminal. It’s currently gated and not accessible to the public.
The City of San Francisco along with a number of parties has been working in the Fisherman’s Wharf area to pursue major new extensions of the Bay Trail through the Jefferson Street corridor.
In Marina Green the Recreation and Parks Department of the City has been working on a phased program of improvements in that area.
In total, we’re looking at almost two acres of new permanent dedicated open space for the Bay area.
Chair Wasserman opened the public comment period on this item by calling for public speakers.
Ms. Michele Radcliffe of San Francisco spoke: I believe heartedly in having the America’s Cup in San Francisco. This is a very exciting and prestigious event to be held in San Francisco. Hosting the America’s Cup offers opportunities to improve facilities along The Embarcadero. I hope the Commission will approve the America’s Cup proposal so this world event can take place in our beautiful Bay.
Ms. Patricia Gilbert, a resident of Novato and a member of the Board of Directors of the Berkeley Yacht Club addressed the Commission: I am a representative to the Bay Area Yacht Club Alliance. I am here today to encourage you to issue the permits necessary for the America’s Cup World Series as well as the 2013 America’s Cup Events.
We have a natural amphitheater here and it will provide a wonderful opportunity for everyone in the area to watch the races.
Ms. Anne Buell, Project Manager for the Coastal Conservancy and the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail Project commented: I am working in partnership with the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Department of Boating and Waterways. I wanted to thank everyone involved for your efforts to increase and improve permanent access for non-motorized small boats to the waterfront of San Francisco as part of your legacy projects. The Water Trail Program greatly appreciates and welcomes these permanent accessible improvements that put both sides into an excellent position to contribute to the Water Trail network.
Mr. Mike Savage, Project Lead for the America’s Cup for the National Parks Service commented: I want to thank all the staff personnel that have been hard at work on this project and the federal agencies that have been hard at work at bringing this project to fruition. This event has been shaped by many different perspectives. We welcome and look forward to the consistency review with BCDC.
Mr. Steven Krefting, Coordinator for the Environmental Council stated: We are an association of many local, regional and national organizations. We’re working on the many environmental issues raised by the America’s Cup races in San Francisco Bay. We support the issuance of this permit. We are particularly pleased to see the fill removal at Pier 64 and the accelerated fill removal at Pier ½, scheduling the fill removal at Pier 64 and construction of a replacement platform for the Caspian Tern colony that’s timed to avoid interference with the tern’s breeding schedule, the increased and improved access for water recreation at Pier 52, the long-term public access improvements including the completion of the Jefferson Street Redesign Project and the Bayview Gateway, the two accessible kayak floats and the site improvements at Marina Green move forward. We feel that these and many other improvements are beneficial to the public and to the waterfront.
Ms. Genny Tulloch addressed the Commission: I am an aspiring Olympic sailor and I am now a training partner for the Games. I have done some commentary for the America’s Cup World Series Events and I’ve lived in the Bay area for the last seven years. I am extremely supportive of having the America’s Cup in the Bay.
Mr. Terrence Jones spoke: I work downtown in commercial real estate and I’m a homeowner here in San Francisco. On behalf of all of the public school students who don’t have millions of dollars to go to the Olympics, this is their opportunity to come and watch a fantastic world event. I encourage you to vote positively on this.
Mr. Adam Bunshoft a native of San Francisco commented: I sailed competitively at UC Berkeley. I am a homeowner here and I own a business in San Francisco. I urge you to vote for the permits. This will be a legacy that people will remember the City for years to come.
Mr. John Arndt spoke: I work with Latitude 38 Sailing magazine and also represent a group called Sail SF Bay which is made up of waterfront businesses around the Bay area as well as sailors around the Bay area. I am really excited to have the America’s Cup coming here. There will be many people coming here from around the world that will be able to come back and do business here in the future. The America’s Cup will help people get to know the Bay. Economically this will generate business for Bay area marine businesses.
Mr. Paul Oliva a resident of San Francisco stated: I keep a boat at South Beach and I’m the waterfront columnist for The San Francisco Chronicle and Commodore of the South Beach Yacht Club. In many ways BCDC is facing a new generation of opportunities for familiarizing the public with our Bay and protecting the environment. There is no opportunity before you now or in the past that gives such an opportunity for exciting people about being in, on or over the water than the America’s Cup.
Mr. Kimball Livingston commented: As a journalist who has covered every America’s Cup for the last 20 years, I can bear witness to the benefits that go with the Cup. This community has a huge well spring of interest and enthusiasm for the Cup that goes far beyond the sailing community.
Mr. Vince Casalaina, a resident of Berkeley stated: I was on two America’s Cup teams in the past. I can tell you firsthand what having the America’s Cup Event means to a city which has a rundown waterfront. I think the plans that have been submitted to date lead us in a positive direction insofar as development and improvement of our waterfront is concerned. This is an opportunity to really extend the public use of the waterfront and I urge you to support it today.
Ms. Valerie Santori spoke: I am a 25-year resident of San Francisco, homeowner and I also manage the Youth Sailing Program at the Golden Gate Yacht Club. I urge you to approve the permits before you today and not delay.
Ms. Ellen Johnck spoke: I am here to continue the theme of public support for this project. BCDC staff and all involved have done an excellent job in going a very long journey through the process here. I see this project as a continuation of the continuing improvement and revitalization of the Port and the waterfront.
Mr. Norman Pearce commented: I am a sailor and a San Francisco resident. I think youth sailing in San Francisco is one of the best kept secrets in all of our citizenship. Every year we have had growth in all the youth sailing programs we conduct.
Commissioner McGrath commented: I have a question of Brad Benson before we close the hearing. I’m a little troubled by the wording, “continue to use its best efforts to secure access” as far as the wind surfers are concerned. I don’t want any rush to a particular solution at Treasure Island. The access to Treasure Island could be 15 years out because of the market conditions. I wonder what, “best efforts” mean. Tell me what you’re committed to do by it and I hope it’s enough.
Mr. Brad Benson answered: I would encourage you to talk to your legal counsel about, “best efforts”. This is actually an issue that came up in the context of the Host and Venue Agreement. The use of “best efforts” is a strong legal standard. The Port is committed to enhancing this kind of recreational boating access on the Bay.
Mr. Mike Martin added: I would like to register my agreement with what Mr. Benson just said. I think what we are willing to commit to do is try to move that improvement well ahead of where it would be without this event. We would be willing to partner with the Board in trying to seek those next steps of what’s the right design, what’s the right way to get into the phasing plan and try to do that by July of 2014; so it’s not 20 years in the future.
Motion: Commissioner Vasquez moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted. Public comment was closed with a voice vote.
Ms. Ming Yeung presented the staff recommendation: The staff recommendation recommends that the Commission approve the major permit for the America’s Cup 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 venue sites and public access areas have been designed to be consistent with the policies of the Waterfront Special Area Plan and Bay Plan policies for public access and scenic views.
The recommendation includes a number of conditions requiring public access areas and improvements both during and after the event, restrictions on public access closures, fill removal, pile driving and a number of other conditions requiring the use of construction best management practices to assure that the project meets the requirements.
A condition for final plan review approval has been included to ensure that all public access areas are barrier free and reflect the recommendations of the Commission’s Design Review Board.
In addition, conditions addressing fill removal at Pier ½ and Pier 64 as required by the Special Area Plan Amendment have also been included.
As conditioned, the staff believes that the project is consistent with the Commission’s law, Bay Plan and Special Area Plan policies and recommend approval of the staff recommendation.
We have noticed a couple of formatting and reference errors in the staff recommendation that we plan to fix for the final permit. We inadvertently left out reference to one of the Pier 9 dredging areas and the dredging condition. So the changes proposed on page 17 of the recommendation will add the dredged area back to Special Condition II-P-2.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiu moved the staff recommendation, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted.
VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 17-0-0 with Commissioners Addiego, Fergusson, Bates, Carrillo, Gilmore, Chiu, Pemberton, Jordan Hallinan, McGrath, Nelson, Pine, Sartipi, Sears, Vasquez, Techel, Vice Chair Halsted and Chair Wasserman voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions.
9. Consideration of AB 2226 and Possible Vote. Chair Wasserman stated: We will now consider whether to take a position on AB 2226, which would require BCDC and other state and local government agencies to apply more restrictive Evidence Code standards to determine whether an applicant has a sufficient ownership interest in a property when applying for a permit.
Executive Director Goldbeck presented the following: Determining that an applicant has adequate property interest is required under your current law, the McAteer-Petris Act and your regulations.
Staff believes that the Administrative Procedures Act standard that now applies is both reasonable and workable. However, this bill would require BCDC and other state agencies and other local governments to use the more restrictive standards in the State Evidence Code when they are determining whether a permit applicant has sufficient ownership interests.
This would make it much more difficult for BCDC to determine who actually owns a parcel of land. The bill would require BCDC to presume that the holder of title is entitled to full beneficial title unless clear and convincing proof is provided.
However, the Evidence Code applies to judicial proceedings where there are tools to obtain such proof, such as the power of discovery, subpoenas, deposition and sworn testimony. These tools are not available to BCDC in its normal permit process.
We believe that the present system works. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission oppose AB 2226. The Coastal Commission and Los Angeles County have already taken a position of opposition.
The State Lands Commission, we understand, will be considering a staff recommendation of opposition at their July meeting. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Commissioner Nelson asked: Are there examples of permits where we got ourselves in trouble here, where we actually found that our existing standard wasn’t adequate to establish title? And second, beyond the challenges that you mentioned, do you have a sense of what costs this new standard would potentially cost us?
Executive Director Goldbeck replied: Staff isn’t aware of any issues that have occurred because of the standards that we use now. It’s unclear what the additional costs would be. It would be more that we wouldn’t be able to actually find out who actually has legal title because we would be forced to assume that they have the full title.
Commissioner Gilmore commented: I’m a little unclear on this. Is this bill aimed more at disclosure or is it aimed at a valid legal title because those are two very different things. It sounds like our process now – we check for valid legal title.
This sounds more like it could be potentially getting towards disclosure of going beyond the corporate veil and looking at who are the individuals or who are the constituent entities that hold the legal title. Do you have any sense if that is what the bill is after? It sounds like it’s a solution in search of a problem.
Executive Director Goldbeck answered that staff agreed with her analysis.
Chair Wasserman added: I think this is a, “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” and somebody was mistaken in thinking something is broke.
Chair Wasserman asked if there was anyone from the public wishing to comment on this matter. Seeing no public comment expressed he asked if Commissioners had any further questions, seeing none he asked for a motion and a second to adopt the staff recommendation and oppose the bill.
10. New Business. No new business was discussed.
11. Old Business. No old business was discussed.
12. Adjournment. Upon motion by Vice Chair Halsted seconded by Commissioner Addiego the meeting adjourned at 2:49 p.m., in memory of Gayle B. Uilkema.
Acting Executive Director
Approved with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of June 21, 2012
R. Zachary Wasserman, Chair