Approved Minutes of March 21, 2013 Commission Meeting

1.Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Wasserman at the Metro Center Auditorium, 101 Eighth Street, Oakland, California, at 1:07 p.m.

2.Roll Call. Present were: Chair Wasserman, Vice Chair Halsted (represented by Alternate Chappell), Commissioners Addiego, Bates, Chan (represented by alternate Gilmore), Chiu, Cortese (represented by Alternate Scharff), Gibbs, Gioia, Gorin, Hicks, McGrath, Moy, Pemberton, Pine, Sartipi, Sears, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), and Wagenknecht.

Chair Wasserman announced that a quorum was present.

Not present were: Association of Bay Area Governments (Apodaca and Techel), Department of Finance (Finn), Governor’s Appointees (Jordan Hallinan and Randolph), Senate Rules Committee (Nelson), Secretary of Resources (Vierra) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Ziegler).

Chair Wasserman announced: I want to note now, as our meeting begins, sadly, that former State Senator Nicholas Petris who represented Oakland and parts of the East Bay in the State Legislature for 37 years and who was the co-author of the legislation, the McAteer-Petris Act that created BCDC, passed away yesterday at the age of 90. As various newspapers have reported, Assemblyman and then Senator Petris was regarded as a leading voice for issues such as tax reform, farmworker rights, mental health services and environmental protection during his long career. He retired in 1996 due to term limits. In the early 1960s, Assemblyman Petris worked with the founders of Save the Bay even prior to the passage of the McAteer-Petris Act to devise ways to protect the Bay and he teamed with Senator Eugene McAteer to guide the initial legislation through the State Legislature and gain the approval of Governor Pat Brown. The Bay area is very lucky to have had such a workhorse representing its eastern shore and we owe a great deal of what we and our predecessors have accomplished to the foresight of Nick Petris. At the end of our agenda I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting in his memory and to ask that the Commission send a resolution of appreciation in his memory to his family.

I do want to welcome two new commissioners, Commissioner Scharff from the city of Palo Alto and Commissioner Gorin from the Sonoma County.

3.Public Comment Period. Chair Wasserman called for public comment on subjects that were not on the agenda. He noted that there was one speaker card submitted.

Mr. Rick Drain addressed the Commission: I am representing the Save Pete’s Harbor Inc. With some nudging from the State Lands Commission we have gotten the developer to agree that the marina which presently exists on state lands will stay a public marina.

What isn’t in the plans yet is adequate parking for it to be a really accessible public marina. The plan has negligible parking for public access. I hope that BCDC will make sure that there is real, reasonable parking provided so it can be a viable public marina.

4.Approval of Minutes of the February 7, 2013 Meeting. Chair Wasserman entertained a motion and a second to adopt the February 7, 2013 minutes.

MOTION: Commissioner Wagenknecht moved, seconded by Commissioner Gioia, to approve the February 7, 2013 minutes. The motion carried by voice vote with no objections and Commissioners Gorin and Scharff abstaining.

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

a.Joint Policy Committee. The Executive Committee of the Joint Policy Committee met last Friday morning and the entire JPC met immediately afterward. Briefings were presented to the full JPC on the JPC Climate and Resilience Program and also on Plan Bay Area, the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area pursuant to SB 375. We will hear today the presentation that was provided on the regional sea level rise strategy. We will have a briefing on Plan Bay Area in May. In addition, the Executive Committee discussed how the JPC should address possible legislation relating to the impacts of climate change and JPC authority. They did not take any action. Senator DeSaulnier has introduced a new bill SB 792 which would impose a variety of requirements on the JPC. This is a two year bill and the JPC agreed to re-engage with Senator DeSaulnier and not take any action on the bill at the present time. The JPC is advertising for a new policy consultant to replace Will Travis, who has finally retired from paid public service. You may go to the JPC website to see the specific job description. If you know of anybody who might be good I encourage you to do so.

With regard to BCDC’s office move, Larry and I met with Governor Brown’s Director of Operations, Sue Johnsrud, last week. We explained in respectful but strong terms our desire to move into the new Regional Headquarters and why we think that makes sense. Unfortunately, this morning I received an email from Ms. Johnsrud that she had briefed Governor Brown’s Chief of Staff, Nancy McFadden, and the decision to have BCDC move into the State Building at 455 Golden Gate stands at least at this moment. I do want to tell you that I am a firm believer in Winston Churchill’s words. Never give in, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honor and good sense. This fight is not quite over but is nearing its end. If we are required to move into the State Building we will continue the effort to find a replacement agency to move into that space so that we can move to the Regional Headquarters where we belong.

b.Next BCDC Meeting. We do not need to hold a meeting on April 4th, so our next regularly scheduled meeting will be held on April 18th, here.

(1)We expect to consider the draft strategic plan that has been prepared by the Commission Working Group and staff.

(2)We will have a public hearing and possible vote on a permit application for Bay Ship and Yacht facility in Oakland.

c.Ex-Parte Communications. That completes my report. This is the time for anyone to make any ex-parte communications reports that you have not previously submitted. No ex-parte communications were reported so Chair Wasserman moved on to Item 6.

6.Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Goldzband reported: I want to start by announcing that the State Senate unanimously confirmed Zack Wasserman as Chairman of BCDC on February 7th.

Rogers Hornsby was the greatest second baseman of his time, and certainly in the top five of all time. He once was asked by a reporter what he did during the winter, when there is no baseball. He replied, “I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” Well, spring has arrived and things are hopping at BCDC.

Thankfully, in a positive way on the staffing side and not the budget side. We have not been called to testify in front of any of the budget committees at this point, so no news continues to be good news. I am pleased to announce that we have many new hires to report, which brings us oh-so-close to being fully staffed.

First, we have promoted Ming Yueng to serve as a staff attorney to work with John Bowers until we fill the Chief Counsel position. You know that Ming is a key player in the permit section where she has lead responsibility for a range of waterfront facility improvement projects including the America’s Cup. What you may not know is that Ming graduated from UCLA’s law school, was a land use attorney at Sheppard, Mullin and spent two years as a planner before joining BCDC seven years ago. Ming’s duty statement will enable her to work both as a BCDC lawyer and retain some of her work as a planner.

While Ming pulls duty as an attorney, Stephen Wallace will fill a role in the permit group. Stephen was an outstanding intern for us last summer, having graduated from Humboldt State. Last summer Stephen reviewed all 88 of the cease and desist and civil penalty orders issued by BCDC, extracted the penalty information and created an analysis that examined pertinent history and trends.

To fill the third slot in our enforcement team that has been open for a full year, we have hired Douglas Armstrong. Doug earned his BA in Environmental Economics from Colgate and graduated from Golden Gate University Law School where he specialized with distinction in environmental law. Doug has interned with the Coastal Commission, The Sierra Club and the California Attorney General's Office. Also, Doug has been an ocean lifeguard at Stinson Beach.

Mike Sevik has been hired as a legal secretary to fill a slot that has been open for some time. Mike earned a BA in English at San Francisco State and a Paralegal Certificate by the ABA-accredited paralegal training program at UC San Diego. Mike most recently worked as a legal secretary at the California PUC and previously worked at two private law firms.

Finally, Greg Ogata has been hired as the fourth and final office technician or secretary. He will start in early April. He hails from Sacramento City College and has three years experience and also interned at CalPERS.

We also have three interns whom I want to introduce quickly. Leila Pree is a Coro Fellow who earned her undergraduate degree at Northwestern. She is working with our Information Technology team to help guide their information gathering and decision-making processes. She’s not here today because she’s shadowing a senior staffer at Save the Bay, which should provide her with a more rounded view of what BCDC does.

Tomas Janusas is finishing his last term at Cal majoring in Urban Studies with a concentration in Geographic Information Systems and Technology. Thomas is working with Javier Del Castillo on GIS issues.

Finally, as if bringing Ming on board the legal staff isn’t enough, we have a new legal intern, Julia Graeser. Julia earned her undergraduate degree at Indiana University and is in her final year at Hastings. She has interned at the Environmental Law Foundation in Oakland and at the San Francisco District Attorney's office and spent a year teaching English in China.

Spring also is known for surprises. On Tuesday, March 19th, Chairman Wasserman gave authorization to Kinder Morgan to conduct an emergency repair on an aviation fuel pipeline that feeds S.F.O. The site of the repair is located in the Commission's 100-foot shoreline band between the cities of Hercules and Rodeo in Contra Costa. The pipeline was shut down after a routine safety inspection uncovered the need for an immediate repair. The repair work involves excavating a trench to access the pipeline and backfilling the trench upon completion of repairs and we expect the work to be completed today. Consistent with your emergency permit procedures, Kinder Morgan will provide Commission staff with a formal permit application for the completed work within five working days of receiving approval earlier this week.

You will recall that Chairman Wasserman asked Commissioners to let him know if they are interested in participating as members of a working group on sea level rise. I am pleased to announce that Commissioners Pine, Sears, Pemberton, McElhinney, Gioia and Gibbs have volunteered their time and expertise. The first meeting of the Working Group will occur on April 15th at BCDC’s offices and we are working on an agenda. I am sure that members of the Working Group will keep the Commission updated on their discussions and ideas and we welcome all of yours.

Spring is also the time to start working with state and federal legislators. I shall be contacting legislative staff in BCDC’s jurisdiction to set up briefings for them in their district offices. I would dearly love to include geographically appropriate Commissioners and/or Alternates in those meetings should you desire. I shall work with you and your staffs to determine your interest and arrange for such meetings.

Speaking of working with each of you, I received a very positive reaction last month from members of the Bay Area Flood Protection Agencies Association when I briefed them on BCDC’s and JPC’s on issues such as rising sea level. I also suggested to them, and they seemed to agree, that BCDC and its Commissioners could provide a means to begin individual countywide interagency discussions on these issues if individual county supervisors who sit on BCDC would like to take the lead. Therefore, I shall contact each of you during the next few weeks to ask you whether and how such discussions might be fruitful within your counties.

Finally, I have been approached by a number of Commissioners and Alternates about the possibility of learning about the Bay and its shoreline outside of regularly scheduled BCDC meetings. BCDC staff would be very willing to host walking tours, background and policy briefings and other avenues for Commissioners to become more familiar with BCDC’s work, with our collaborations and with the Bay itself. I shall send you a short questionnaire on these possibilities next month and we’ll work to put something together if a number of you decide that would be helpful.

It is spring and Form 700 is due. It is due April 2nd. I sent you an email regarding this in February and the form is also available in the “what’s new” section on our website. Please do not be late!

Commissioner McGrath inquired: The Kinder Morgan pipeline, presumably since you didn’t report that this was found before there were any leakage problems, is that correct?

Ms. Jaime Michaels responded: There were no leaks. That is why they wanted to fix it so quickly.

7.Consideration of Administrative Matters. Chair Wasserman noted that there were no administrative matters to report on and he moved to Item 8.

8.Briefing on the Marin County Waterfront and Related Issues. Chair Wasserman announced that Item #8 was a briefing by Commissioner Kate Sears of Marin County and her staff on issues and activities of interest to the Commission along the Marin County shoreline.

Commissioner Sears reported the following: I’m going to take you on a little tour through Marin County. Marin was one of the original 27 counties when California was admitted to the Union in 1850. The County encompasses 606 square miles.

In 1920 Marin had a population of 27,000. Today the population is about 252,000.

There are 11 cities and towns in the County. The two largest are San Rafael and Novato. The County is primarily rural and residential with commercial and light industrial located on the 101 corridor.

The peninsula geography of Marin County has really separated us from the rest of the Bay and has slowed development compared to some of the other Bay counties.

The three most significant events that shaped Marin’s population and development were the 1906 Earthquake and fire which saw tens of thousands of refugees from San Francisco seek refuge in Marin County.

The building and opening of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937 and the post-World War II economic boom also were significant in Marin’s history.

Marin is unique in the abundance of protected agricultural land, open space and park lands. Our best known park lands are the Point Reyes National Seashore, Muir Woods National Monument and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area established in 1972.

In addition to the Mount Tamalpais State Park there are six other state parks in Marin including China Camp and Angel Island.

Two of our open-space preserves are Bothin Marsh and in Mill Valley and Aramburu Island near Tiburon.

The county’s primary industries prior to World War II were fisheries, dairies and lumber, all of which relied on the Bay’s commerce of shipping and ferries.

We also have quite a pattern of military installations throughout the county. They’ve played a significant role in our county’s development and the change of land use.

Initially Marin was inhabited by the coastal Miwok who relied on our baylands for their livelihood. They flourished along our shoreline but were pushed to virtual extinction by 1900.

The next settlers were Spanish and Mexicans who came to Marin County in the early 1800s.

Discovery of gold in the late 1840s intensified migration into Marin County and particularly increased the immigration of Chinese settlers who established a major shrimp fishing industry in what is now China Camp State Park.

By 1860 Marin was the largest dairy county in the state producing 25 percent of the state’s butter.

Logging of the redwood forests got Marin into full swing by the 1870s and the lumber was transported by barge.

Many of the refugees brought to Marin County by the 1906 Earthquake stayed.

The northern end of Marin County today is still very agricultural in its character. The central part of the county has a lot of light industry and commerce and residents. The most intensely developed part of the county is the south.

The land use planning in Marin modeled a lot of what the one Bay Area Plan is suggesting about development throughout our Bay. The first modern land use plan in Marin was developed in 1972 and most recently updated in 2007.

Marin County has a long tradition of environmental planning balanced with the recognition of the essential linkages between land use, transportation, housing and watershed protection.

Because we are surrounded by water on three sides we also focus and understand the critical importance of watershed planning.

The 606 square miles of our county are divided into four corridors, the coastal, the inland rural, the city-centered section and the baylands corridor.

When we adopted the baylands corridor designation in 2007 and added it to our countywide plan, it was because we recognized the unique environmental characteristics of this area and the need to protect it from further development.

One of the key policy requirements of this designation is that there be an environmental assessment for all projects in that particular corridor that goes along our Bay.

The Redwood Landfill opened in 1958 sitting along the Bay and its wetlands. This continues to be an issue of contention about whether this is a proper placement for a landfill.

Hamilton Field had its origins in the late 1920s when Hamilton Airfield was first established on what had been marshland. During World War II Hamilton became a fighter base and was an important West Coast air training facility.

In 1976 the airfield was closed and the area was used as an introduction center for refugees from Southeast Asia.

Today Hamilton Field is a mixed-use community with hangers converted into office space and over 1,000 homes. There are over 70 acres of parks and open space and 50 acres of community facilities including a library and the Marin Museum of Contemporary Art.

Hamilton Field is part of a large tidal wetlands restoration project. Almost 1,000 acres of airfield will become seasonal wetlands alive with fish and shore birds.

In the early 1900s the land on which hundreds of homes in Santa Venetia now stand was all tidal marsh. The homes were built in the 1940s and 50s after developers raised the elevation at a time when the county did not have the policies to regulate that sort of development.

The Santa Venetia neighborhood began to sink as the fill settled. The homes eventually were below sea level. Levees were constructed to provide protection from tide and flood waters but Santa Venetia remains extremely vulnerable to flooding and rising sea level as well.

China Camp State Park goes right along the edge of San Pedro Bay and it includes extensive inter-tidal salt marsh meadows and oak habitats and a variety of wildlife and protected species.

By the 1890s competitive fishing interests and state authorities applied heavy pressure on the Chinese fisherman attempting to regulate them out of business. By 1905 the prosperity of the village had seriously declined and the Chinese residents became an important source of labor for road building, quarrying, brick building and local railroad construction and agriculture in Marin County.

The San Rafael Rock Quarry consists of almost 750 acres over one square mile of land and underwater areas. The quarry mines between one and one and a half million tons of rack and aggregate a year.

San Quentin Prison has been part of our Marin community since 1852. If death row is moved to another prison in California there will be a robust discussion on what use to put these 275 acres to.

A new highway was constructed along the wetlands in the Corte Madera area in the 1930s in anticipation of the opening of the Golden Gate Bridge.

Paradise Cay is an example of a type of development that BCDC or Marin County would not approve of today.

The Romberg Tiburon Center property began as a cattle ranch. The deep water just offshore made it an ideal site for processing fish.

As early as 1877 large vessels from as far away as Alaska offloaded their cod catch here. In 1904 the federal government had a coaling station built to serve the Navy on the former fish processing site.

In 1931 the Navy loaned part of the property to the state of California to establish the state’s first nautical training school, the California Maritime Academy.

In the early 1930s it was also the site of cable winding for the Golden Gate Bridge construction.

World War II brought another change. The Navy Net Depot built huge steel anti-submarine nets at this site at Romberg. One of these nets was laid across the San Francisco Bay spanning seven miles in length and weighing 7,000 tons.

Today, the property is a marine research facility, the San Francisco State Romberg Tiburon Center for Environmental Studies.

In 1912 there was a proposal to cut a four mile channel from Tennessee Valley Cove through to Richardson Bay creating a backdoor shipping channel. The idea was revisited in 1936 when the Navy was considering the area as a potential submarine base.

In December of 1935 Joseph Strauss the chief engineer for the Golden Gate Bridge proposed filling in the northern half of Richardson Bay to create an amusement park, coliseum and airfield.

In the 1960s there was another plan to fill Richardson Bay for a housing development. Fortunately, this plan went nowhere and something much more positive happened.

In 1962 a 900 acre parcel was acquired by Audubon creating the Audubon Richardson Bay Center and Sanctuary. It is an important bird area and is a significant resting area on the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds.

Richardson Bay is one of the most pristine estuaries on the Pacific Coast in spite of its urbanized periphery.

Richardson Bay is also home to marsh and tidal zones, marine and aquatic life, anchor-out houseboat marinas and a significant portion of the Bay Trail.

The 17 acre Aramburu Island is managed by the Marin County Department of Parks and Open Space and has received a significant facelift within the past couple of years.

This restoration project grew out of the Cosco Busan spill in 2007 when a freighter dumped 58,000 gallons of bunker oil in the Bay. The Richardson Bay and Audubon staff went out to look for oiled and sick birds and were surprised to find birds that only come to shore when they’re stressed taking refuge on Aramburu Island.

The county then embarked on a project to stabilize the eroding eastern shoreline of the island to enhance wetland and terrestrial habitats to encourage seabird and seal use and redesign the terrain to provide resilience in the face of sea level rise.

Bothin Marsh is also part of Richardson Bay. This marsh is over 100 acres in size and is a mix of tidal wetlands, sloughs and Bay shore that provides habitat for hundreds of native birds and wildlife species.

A King Tide Event puts some of the shoreline in southern Marin County underwater as seen in some the slides I will share with you.

The Bothin Marsh can act as partial protection for us for the effects of sea level rise.

Sausalito has always been connected to the water and has always been diverse. Sausalito became a transit hub with the arrival of the first rail lines from the north becoming the connecting link between most northern California trains and ferries in San Francisco.

It became a social and cultural hub after the Golden Gate Bridge opened in 1937.

During World War II a shipyard at the northern end of Sausalito was built and was one of six “emergency” shipyards that were commissioned by the U.S. Maritime Commission in the Bay area in 1942. This 210 acre yard was built in just a few months by filling in tidal areas with soil from an adjacent hillside.

The property still contains 15 major buildings, the remains of five slipways, railroad tracks and other evidence of what it took to build 93 Liberty Ships between 1942 and 1945, each one produced in just 28 days.

During this time period 20,000 workers came in from all over the country to fill the ranks of workers in these shipyards. They quickly assembled temporary housing in the north of Sausalito in what is now Marin City.

There was a battle heating up for the civil rights of all the workers at the shipyards. The integration of the trade unions in California had its beginning in these shipyards.

This time period was the beginning of the houseboat community on Richardson Bay. The Marinship currently remains a light industrial zone and is still a vibrant marine-center community that serves the recreational boat harbor.

This is also a site of a thriving art colony and community.

The Richardson Bay Regional Agency monitors water quality testing and helps manage the anchorage and our anchor-outs. They keep the issue of sustainability of this resource and some of the enforcement challenges visible as a policy matter.

Fort Baker at the foot of the Golden Gate Bridge was established in 1850 as a coastal defense position. After 150 years the U.S. Army left in 2000.

Coming out of some not-so-friendly litigation there was an agreement between the Park Service and the city of Sausalito and the developers of the 142 room Cavallo Point Resort and Conference Center to try and honor and maintain the historical significance of the property and its buildings.

There is still one kind of remnant aspect of the military past at Fort Baker. And that’s the Horseshoe Cove in the harbor which is managed by the Presidio Yacht Club under the sponsorship of Travis Air Force Base for use by active reserve and retired military.

There are a number of veterans who live on boats in the marina. The National Parks Service is currently considering revising potential uses for that area.

We have a very significant amount of the Bay Trail coming through Marin County. It really helps to link together the water-side and the land-side uses.

One of the things that we’ve learned over the years is underlining the importance of our resources and our understanding of how to protect those resources.

Liz Lewis is our principal watershed planner for the Marin County Department of Public Works.

Ms. Lewis reported the following: I am the principal planner with Marin County Public Works in our flood control division. Many of the areas that have been developed along the Bay are susceptible to flooding, both river flooding and tidal flooding. I’m going to be talking about our program and where we’re working and talk about the aspects of websites, stakeholder outreach, public education and some of the tools we’ve developed to support the program.

I will talk about how we’re evaluating sea level rise in the context of flood protection and habitat restoration and also talk a little bit about our schedule.

We’re working in four different areas of the county, the Novato Watershed, the Gallinas Lower Miller Creek Watershed, Richardson Bay and Stinson Beach in the Easkoot Creek Watershed.

We feel the diversity of these habitats provide a good demonstration for a variety of sea level rise adaptation approaches.

The website provides information not just for the four watersheds just mentioned but for about 28 watersheds throughout the county.

This approach is new for Marin County. It’s a way for us to recalibrate and re-approach the ways that we’re looking at flood protection and habitat restoration in the county.

The work that we’re doing in this phase focusses on three items, looking at existing conditions, pulling all of that together, the hydrology and the hydraulics, looking at the water that is flowing off of the hillsides and what’s flowing through our creeks out into the Bay and into the ocean and then, finally, the opportunities for integration.

Some of the tools being developed through this process include creek and watershed flow models that will continue to serve the communities for years to come.

In all four watersheds we are either recalibrating or creating new hydrology and hydraulic models.

We’ve also have plans to look at sediment. Sediment is a huge issue in a lot of the lower channels. Because of all of the leveeing and diking off of wetlands and the creeks there’s nowhere to store this excess sediment. A lot of it ends up in our flood control channels.

We’re looking at ways that we can beneficially re-use a lot of this material as well as ways to recreate marsh habitats to help the creeks move the sediment more efficiently themselves.

The Petaluma River area is an extremely valuable ecological area. The Hamilton Wetlands Restoration Project is about 1,000 acres and very important. This area is part of a band of baylands that are about eight miles of shoreline.

These areas are going to be key corridors and habitat for the four focal species listed here, Clapper Rail, salmonids, Steelhead, Black Rail and the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse.

There was once a huge expansive flood plain that once carried and stored a lot of sediment from both Miller Creek and Las Gallinas Creek in this area.

We started looking at partnering with the Parks Department as well as the Las Gallinas Sanitary District to see if we couldn’t achieve some of the goals that those wetlands supported historically.

If we were able to do this then hopefully we could reduce the need for expensive dredging and having someplace where the dredged material could be re-used.

These project goals also reflect the work that we are doing in Lower Novato Creek where we’re partnering with BCDC and other agencies in our flood control efforts.

Southern Marin has a long history of flood protection measures that goes back 50 years. In this area we are going back to determine what projects that have already been scoped might be viable in light of sea level rise and which ones might need to be done away with. All of this will be captured in the form of a master plan closer to 2014 and 2015.

Chair Wasserman thanked the presenters and asked for comments or questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Gioia commented: I really appreciated the historical perspective. This is what led to the current uses.

Chair Wasserman recognized one public speaker on this item.

Ms. Margaret Kettonen Zegart spoke: I wanted to thank the presenters and this was a wonderful viewpoint of Marin.

We are very grateful for the early mapping that made Richardson Bay a special wilderness protection area.

We also need our people protected. There is a development that occurred in the mid-1950s in Marin City and there has been severe settlement in the areas that have been filled. The homes that are there are very vulnerable.

We are concerned that there will be further development on very vulnerable land. There have been many concessions made to developers in building in these areas.

Commissioner McGrath commented: We’ve had two fairly significant wave and storm events within the last 30 years. The most significant one was in 1983 where the total of all the storm surge was three feet, so imagine those areas in a storm with three feet more of water not including the waves themselves.

This illustrates the magnitude of the problem we face.

9.Briefing on Abandoned Vessels and Marine Debris. Now we will take up item 9, which is a briefing on abandoned vessels in San Francisco Bay. Adrienne Klein will make the staff presentation and introduce our speakers.

Ms. Adrienne Klein reported: The purpose of this briefing on abandoned vessels and marine debris in San Francisco Bay and the Delta is to give you an overview of the magnitude of our abandoned vessel and marine debris problem, the successes that have been achieved in addressing it, the ongoing efforts to manage it and the challenges that we face as a region in managing it.

This problem is significant. It is an ongoing situation and can be managed but not resolved and requires collaboration to maximize our limited resources and authorities.

So first, what are abandoned vessels and marine debris and how much are we dealing with, where is it and why should we care?

The shoreline of the Bay is awash with structures that once served a commercial or industrial use but whose purpose came to an end.

There are large numbers of former military or commercial vessels that were sold for civilian uses and eventually abandoned on public and private property.

There are hundreds of recreational vessels that are also abandoned every year because owners can no longer afford the berthing fees or even the costs associated with proper disposal.

Finally, people live on boats on the water because it suits them or they have no other option. We estimate that outside of the marinas where boats are supposed to be moored there are presently 250 abandoned vessels and 65 vessels on which people are illegally living.

In Richardson Bay the number of vessels moored offshore, not all of which are abandoned, increased from 137 in 2010 to 160 in 2012. The Richardson Bay Regional Agency devotes $122,000 of its $360,000 dollar annual budget or, 34 percent, to vessel removal and removes approximately 55 vessels from the anchorage per year. Since 1997 it has removed a total of 797 vessels from the anchorage or approximately 9,000 tons of marine debris and solid waste. In Redwood City between 1996 and 2003 the Port working with local law enforcement removed approximately 113 vessels and about 1,000 tons of debris. In Contra Costa County between 2005 and 2011 the sheriff’s department removed 186 and three floating junkyards.

These abandoned vessels have hazardous substances onboard such as fuel, solvents, PCBs, batteries, waste oil, lead contaminated paint and asbestos. They are capable of sinking at any time and releasing all of these pollutants into the Bay. Boats and their anchors are pulled by twice daily tides damaging Richardson Bay subtidal Eel Grass habitat.

Now that I have establihed that there is an abandoned boat and marine debris issue causing natural resource damage, I’ll next address who is managing this problem, how and under what legal authority?

The McAteer-Petris Act provides the authority to regulate the placement of fill, the extraction of materials and the change in use of any area in BCDC’s jurisdiction. Fill is any structure floating at some or all times and moored for an extended period such as houseboats and floating docks. The law authorizes BCDC to approve projects in the Bay when the use is water-oriented and there’s no alternative upland location. Residential use of the Bay is not considered a water-oriented use and generally has an alternative upland location.

The San Francisco Bay Plan allows for two types of residential use of boats on the Bay. First, the seven houseboat marinas totaling about 445 houseboat berths that existed upon the adoption of the McAteer-Petris Act though any repair or maintenance or other work at these unique marinas is subject to BCDC’s regulatory review. Second, all recreational marinas may receive permission to use 10 percent of the berths for live-aboard tenants which means that the boat, which must be navigable, is used as a fulltime residence and is the sole place of residence. The policy basis for allowing this otherwise non-conforming use is that limited residential use of a marina, such as 20 live-aboard boats for every 200 berths, enhances its overall recreational capacity by increasing safety and security for the recreational tenants. Practically speaking this means that you only regulate the floating docks at a recreational marina and not the boats unless it’s a live-aboard boat. Further, you regulate the commercially operating vessels in the Bay as part of the shoreline operation with which they’re affiliated such as marine repair, dredging and metal recycling.

Vessels should be moored in a marina or at a marine-related business yard and not anchored offshore or tied up to a shoreside structure without benefit of a BCDC permit. So any vessel moored for an extended period of time, any structure sitting on the Bay bottom or a vessel floating or any vessel or floating structure used as a residence is subject to BCDC regulatory authority.

For those vessels or structures moored in a manner that’s inconsistent with the law and policies and therefore not capable of being legalized, the law provides you with the ability to issue cease and desist and civil penalty orders. BCDC has issued approximately 10 cease and desist orders since 1990 to the owners of illegally moored vessels, usually houseboats anchored in open water. These orders have generally been issued as a final step after a locally led inter-agency effort has been implemented. Your orders have provided the legal clout to enable local agencies to remove the offending vessels and affiliated structures because BCDC does not have the authority or means to physically abate problems in your jurisdiction. You can impose administrative penalties of up to $30,000 per violation. Realistically we don’t obtain penalties from the population who abandon vessels on the Bay.

BCDC’s authority to manage abandoned vessels and marine debris is ultimately limited but we leverage the capacity we have. We gave the city of Benicia $415,000 from Caltrans mitigation funds to remove 26,400 square feet of former military and commercial vessels that were abandoned at this site shown. We are exploring with our budget officer and others the option of using our Bay Fill Clean Up and Abatement Fund, where all administrative and court-imposed penalties are deposited, for a vessel version of cash for clunkers to supplement other funds available to manage this problem.

There are many agencies that have legal authority to manage abandoned vessels and marine debris but no single agency’s authority is comprehensive.

Since 1949 the Army Corps of Engineers has been removing debris from the Bay’s navigational channels using its authority under The Harbors and Rivers Act.

During the past three years this program’s budget has averaged 2.5 million dollars a year but was at risk of being de-funded. This authority is working and should remain funded at levels sufficient to provide navigational safety Baywide. The current conditions in Washington, D.C. perhaps foretell that funding of this program, once again, could be at risk?

The U.S. Coast Guard responds to vessels causing an immediate and substantial threat to the marine environment, such as an oil spill, using its authority under The Oil Pollution Act of 1990. The Sector San Francisco Incident Management Division responds to an average of 250 oil pollution incidents per year. In 2012 the federal on-scene coordinator federalized 32 incidents enabling utilization of the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to remove oil from vessels polluting the Bay. Often a spill happens when a vessel sinks. The Incident Management Division raises the vessel at great expense to empty the engine of its fluids. The Coast Guard does not have the authority to remove the vessel from the Bay as part of its response and therefore releases it in place to sink again. They first mark the vessel with a warning flag so it will not be a navigation hazard. This authority is inadvertently flawed and requires federal review and legislative action to be corrected.

Working in partnership with BCDC last year the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board obtained permission to spend $25,000 from the State Water Board’s Clean Up and Abatement Account to address an imminent and significant threat to water quality where there was no financially responsible party. This money enabled removal of many gallons of toxic substances from several previously abandoned barges in the Oakland Alameda Estuary. The Abatement Account had not been previously used to avert an anticipated spill. While we were relieved to remove so much toxic material from these vessels, we were unable to find a contractor who could turn a profit salvaging them so they remain abandoned in San Leandro Bay on East Bay Regional Park District property. However, because of our efforts they will cause substantially less damage to the marine environment should they break apart or sink.

The State Harbors and Navigation Code requires all boats to be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and be seaworthy, operable and outfitted with basic safety equipment and instrumentation. Any law enforcement or public agency may remove a vessel or any hulk, derelict, wreck, or part of a ship or other water craft from any waterway if its registration has been expired for one year or it’s not seaworthy, obstructs the movement of traffic, creates a hazard to other vessels, poses a danger to the environment, navigation, or public health, safety and welfare, or is considered abandoned meaning no one has attended to it for a 30 day period. When any of these circumstances exist the acting agency, if there is one, must attempt to contact the last registered owner by mail and affixing a notice on the vessel that will cause it to become the possession of the acting agency and destroyed or sold unless claimed. While this process might sound simple, it is time consuming and costly. The acting agency must have the equipment and expertise, a trained and funded marine patrol unit to safely remove the vessel from the waterway, safely store it at an upland location during the waiting period to allow for its claim and the funds to pay for its disposal. Often in an attempt to recoup costs, retrieved vessels are auctioned. However, liens associated with property are deducted from the proceeds and the vessel can reappear in the area after the lien sale causing the same set of law enforcement problems.

It’s infinitely easier to remove an abandoned vessel over one used as a residence because possession adds a time consuming and costly layer of legal adjudication.

At least eight local governments have established vessel mooring ordinances to supplement the state Harbors and Navigation Codes. These ordinances expressly establish the terms under which a vessel can anchor including duration of stay, use limits, marine sanitation requirements, application requirements and sometimes a fee. Local law enforcement agencies vary in their commitment to patrolling and managing the water portion of their jurisdiction. Some have a funded and trained marine patrol unit but many do not. Local law enforcement around the Bay is becoming increasingly sensitive to the importance of patrolling the waterways to reduce crime, increase safety and protect the environment.

The most effective way to tackle the abandoned vessel and marine debris issue is to work cooperatively. For this reason in 2009 the U.S. Coast Guard established an inter-agency working group that meets six times a year through which we’ve educated each other about our respective roles and responsibilities, forged relationships, established a master list of abandoned vessels and regularly update each other on issues we face and the successes we have achieved.

In 2010 an Alameda Harbormaster convened a series of inter-agency meetings to address an illegally moored vessel and crime problem in the Oakland Alameda Estuary.

This caught CalRecycle’s attention and will soon result in a $1.2 million cleanup of the estuary.

I would like to introduce Todd Thalhamer, a project engineer with the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery, commonly known as CalRecycle, who will make a presentation on the use of their department’s solid waste disposal fund in the marine environment.

Mr. Thalhamer presented the following: My departure will be accelerated today because of a conference call I will have with the U.S. Embassy in Panama City regarding a very large landfill fire there that is currently burning and shutting down multiple schools.

I wear a number of hats and one of them is a waste management engineer and also as a fireman. I’m an international expert on landfill fires.

There are a number of agencies that are involved to look at this abandoned vessel issue. Every one of these vessels have taught me something about the navigable waterways and their construction that I never thought I would know.

From my perspective, the impacts of this issue are immense. Our objective at CalRecycle was to remove the abandoned vessels to remove the threat to the environment and the hazard to navigation.

One of our keys has been adjudication by local enforcement agencies. We are finding asbestos, PCBs, marine batteries, mercury switches, radium dials, oils, compressed gas cylinders and many others. We have found meth labs and radioactive materials as well. To date we are looking at about $2.5 million in expenditures. This averages out to about $100,000 per vessel. We do vessel demolition as well. We kind of take on the larger vessels, the commercial/industrial vessels.

We’re estimating that our Oakland Estuary Project will cost about $1.3 million however, during my investigation I found about $2.2 million worth of abandoned vessels and debris. We have eight sites with 40 to 50 vessels in the Oakland Estuary Project and it goes from San Pablo Bay to the Oakland Estuary.

We are also dealing with public access issues in that we have abandoned vessels that have sunk near public fishing docks.

We have navigational hazards here as well. There were two tugboats that were sunk along with two barges in this area.

We are currently working on two abatement projects, Oakland and West Sacramento. We have committed approximately about one million dollars to this fiscal year. One of the sticking points right now is that we have a pilot project classification on these endeavors.

The magnitude of the problem that I am looking at is a minimum of $20 million.

Ms. Adrienne Klein commented: CalRecycle funding for expenditures in the marine environment is on hold at the moment. Mr. Thalhamer is confident that within a year or two it will recommence.

I would like to introduce Susan Sykes from the State Department of Boating and Waterways who will present two funding mechanisms for vessel abatement known as AWAF, the Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund, and VTIP, the Vessel Turn In Program.

Ms. Sykes presented the following: I am the vessel abatement analyst for the Department of Boating and Waterways. We administer two grant funds that are dedicated to the mitigation or reduction of abandoned vessels in California, The Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fundand the Vesssel Turn In Program. I will refer to both of these as AWAF and VTIP.

Abandoned boats are increasing in California. Some of the factors contributing to this problem are, a downturn in the economy, rising fuel costs, aging vessels with little or no resale value, expensive repairs, theft, uninsured accidents, poor fishing and stricter fishing regulations, bankruptcy, loss of employment and the list goes on and on.

One of the biggest culprits is that it’s cheaper to abandon a vessel in many cases.

The fine is a rate of $1,000 to $3,000. Oftentimes the boat owners do not have any resources to go after. They also are very clever at removing any identification on the vessel.

Oftentimes there is no owner to place with a boat.

Wildlife and natural resources are at risk due to the hazardous materials found on these abandoned vessels. The boats leak toxins 24/7 until the day that they are removed.

They become havens for the homeless or the indigent.

Tourism contributes over $102 billion annually to California. Prime locations often include water-based activities at beaches, campgrounds, lakes and rivers and abandoned vessels can be eyesores and dangers.

Locally, marina businesses suffer financially from abandoned vessels. Oftentimes boats are left abandoned in slips and there is a delay in the length of time it takes marinas to identify abandoned vessels. The difficult lien process is a 30 year old law and does need to be revamped.

State taxpayers are left to pay the tab, almost $5 million since 1997.

The Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund was enacted through Senate Bill 172 in 1997. It provides funding to local public agencies to remove, store and dispose of abandoned, wrecked or dismantled vessels or any other partially submerged objects which pose a substantial hazard to navigation or a threat to the environment or public safety.

Since 1997 we’ve removed 1,582 vessels. The total expense has been almost $5 million at an average cost of $3,100 per vessel. In 2012 we almost doubled the number of participating agencies from the year prior. We’re now at 20 and in the 2011/12 fiscal year it was 11. Unfortunately, commercial vessels are not allowed or covered under these programs.

The state is further addressing the abandoned vessel problems with a proactive program called the Vessel Turn In Program (VTIP). It’s like cash for clunkers with no cash.

In 2010 Assembly Bill 166 established this three year pilot program to prevent abandoned vessels from happening in the first place. Under the VTIP program, a verified title holder can willingly surrender free of charge, their vessel to a participating agency. The boat must be free and clear from liens, debts, rents and other financial obligations. Agencies that participate are reimbursed their expenses less a 10 percent match. There were many agencies that couldn’t even make this 10 percent match. We’ve changed this year and we are now accepting an in-kind 10 percent contribution which will allow for personnel hours and other administrative costs, storage, transportation and other expenses. VTIP is scheduled to expire and sunset at the beginning of next year. Recently, Senate Bill 122 was submitted by Senator Lieu to extend VTIP indefinitely.

Funding for the VTIP comes from the AWAF Fund. A total of $150,000 is budgeted most every year. It is available only to local public agencies such as law enforcement, public marinas, water districts and other city and county agencies that have an abatement plan. Agencies increased from 6 to 11 in 2012 and there is a 10 percent match. The grant requests exceeded funding last year by 72 percent. One hundred percent of participating VTIP agencies support the continuance of the program.

In the last three years the AWAF program has spent $1 million and the VTIP $267,000. We have removed 251 hazards through AWAF and 165 through VTIP. The average cost per vessel removed is $4,200.00 for AWAF and $1,600.00 through VTIP. The cost per vessel through the AWAF doesn’t include the costs that the agencies have to also absorb which are immense. Just the staff time to identify, tag, handle, store, remove and also the staff hours spent trying to contact owners just adds to these numbers exponentially.

The AWAF Fund in 2011 was 500,000. We increased it 40 percent last year to $700,000. Agency grant requests came in at over $1 million.

For VTIP we had $100,000 for 2011 and increased to 150 in 2012 which was a 50 percent increase. We still were $110,000 short of requests.

Grant amounts are based on an agency’s “estimate of need.” Prior to this, agencies had to have specific issues that they applied for assistance with through the AWAF Program. We changed it so that agencies can now apply based on “estimate of need.” We’re working with this so that no one over - or under-estimates their need. If they over-estimate we want the money back.

Commissioner McGrath commented: The process for a boat that appears to be abandoned but has not been officially abandoned needs some clarification. As I understand it there is a due process that is required to begin removal of something. Perhaps you could lay this out and what might be a more efficient process.

Ms. Sykes answered: Generally, when a boat is abandoned there are telltale signs. If the owner is known and there is record of an owner then they have to be contacted.

There is a process for this and it is private property. There are protections for the owners of private property. The contact has to be made and the owner has a length of time to respond and then a lien process has to take effect.

This is one of those laws I would personally like to see changed. If a vessel has a value of less than 1,500 dollars that boat at the lien sale cannot be sold for more than $100, if it has a trailer, $150.

There can also be a lien attached to that boat which might be for back storage fees, slip rental fees and what have you.

Part of the problem with these lien sales is that people are buying these boats and then living on them and anchoring out and squatting on them. They’re trying to find cheap places to habitate. They often become repeat offenders and they’re a difficult issue to deal with.

There are people who buy boats at these lien sales who do have good intentions. They want to buy a boat and fix it up.

If a boat has been determined to be abandoned it can be removed by local law enforcement. They don’t always want to, have the manpower, the funds or have the storage area.

It’s a lengthy process to have an abandoned vessel removed unless it’s an immediate hazard; then it can be removed quickly.

Commissioner Gilmore commented: I can really relate to this because about four years ago the city of Alameda was successful in removing an abandoned vessel named, The Faithful. After about three years of legal wrangling and $250,000 later we got rid of it. It’s a very time consuming and very expensive process.

Ms. Klein stated: Staff recommends that BCDC support Senate Bill 122 to continue the VTIP Program. Because most of the boats at the now closed Pete’s Harbor were live-aboard boats, they weren’t eligible for relocation within the marinas in our jurisdiction. Some of these evicted tenants found berths in the Bay and along the coast but some of these boats have made their way into the offshore areas especially Richardson’s Bay. Had we been able to establish a VTIP program prior to the closing of Pete’s Harbor perhaps some of these boats could have been turned in for immediate salvage.

Bill Price is Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency’s Harbor Administrator. He will provide you with an overview of what he does to manage the anchorage there.

Mr. Price presented the following: I will provide you with an overview of Richardson’s Bay Regional Agency’s Vessel Disposal Program.

RBRA was established in 1985 and it was formed as a response to the Special Area Plan that BCDC and a number of local agencies collaborated on. This was done to address the long-term issues of houseboats and vessels anchored in Richardson Bay and the environmental and social problems that they were faced with.

The main goals that I have been tasked with are, managing the anchorage, water quality and debris removal.

In 1995 when I started there were boats littering the Bay and the shoreline and I had to figure out how to deal with it.

I had no budget to do this so I started looking for free labor. I started working with the County Adult Offenders Work Program right away. In lieu of jail time volunteers would come out and we would remove boats by hand.

My first big project was to remove the dry docks and we came in under budget. We removed 32 vessels with the $250,000 we had. Most of the work was done by contractors because most of the boats were sunken.

This was the first time that I worked with the Army Corps of Engineers and they have been a partner with us since that time.

The picture of the powered barge, “Alix” is indicative of the type of vessels we removed with the HUD funds we received. These big commercial boats were the predominant problem.

The cost to remove the Alix was shared among three agencies and the coordination was just about perfect. It was mentioned earlier that when the Coast Guard raised a vessel they had to let it sink once they cleaned it up because it was not within their mission statement to do otherwise with the vessel. We’ve worked vigilantly with them to solve this problem. We are their partner when they raise a boat and we take it away or they will bring it to us so we can deal with it.

There was a big problem down in Redwood City and the Aqua Terra Project was put together which was a joint task force that sparked the Abandoned Watercraft Abatement Fund because there was no money for the task force to go out and do the work that they were contemplating.

They got the money through Senator Rainey’s bill. The bill was set up for $1 million annually for abatement. Even though this level of spending has not been achieved yet, we are getting close to that amount now.

BCDC has also partnered with us in dealing with abandoned vessels. In 1999 and 2001 we were funded by two mitigation funds, one was for the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and the other one was the Richmond Yacht Club. Both of these funds provided money to remove mostly commercial wrecks.

The Vessel Turn In Program (VTIP) has been very helpful for us. This program has its beginning with Governor Schwarzenegger when he decided to run what he called, The Abandoned Vessel Advisory Committee. I served on that committee with a number of other agency representatives.

The VTIP was a unanimous choice among all of us on the Committee. It was set into motion in 2009. It does take the boat away while the owner is capable of giving it to you and not fighting you over it.

An average berth rate around here is $10 per foot, so if you’re not using it the expenses add up quickly. With the economy going down people have been even more inspired to let their boats go.

Once the boat has been sold to a new owner, the marina will typically not rent back to the new owner because they don’t trust him or her to do the right thing with the old crusty boat that has been sitting in the marina not paying rent for a while. Generally they are towed out of the marina and not let back in.

I hope BCDC can send a letter to Senator Lieu in support of VTIP because it is vital for our operations.

One of the best things about the grant that we applyied to CalRecycle for is that we don’t have to match it and we can remove whatever boat we want. Your staff has been very helpful in assisting us with the grant process.

Without the funding that we have received, my agency would not have been able to do the work we have done. The grant program is vital to our efforts.

This problem does not seem to be decreasing. Boats just keep coming. As fast as I get rid of them they backfill. This problem will not go away until we have more programs like VTIP and Cash for Clunkers.

The State Lands Commission had a bill passed last year exercising State Land’s existing authority to remove and dispose of abandoned vessels and ground tackle in a swifter manner.

A lot of times my job consists of talking people out of their boats. I get about two calls per week with people wanting to turn in their boats.

In closing I would like to put in a plea for anything the Commission can do to force marinas that are remodeling or closing to compel them to not let the boats turned loose into the open ocean.

Mr. Brock de Lappe spoke before the Commission: I am the Harbor Master at the Alameda Marina. Last year I helped to coordinate a group we call the Oakland Estuary Coalition. This group involved harbor masters along the estuaries as well as local agencies, law enforcement, the Oakland and Alameda police, the Alameda County Sheriff, Coast Guard, East Bay Regional Parks, BCDC, Coastal Commission and we had all these people in the same room to discuss the problem of abandoned and illegally moored vessels on the Oakland Estuary.

Despite all the dangers associated with these illegal vessels, no agency has the ability to go and deal with these vessels.

We were extremely happy when Todd Thalhamer got $650,000 allocated from his department and found matching funds from the Cosco Busan settlement from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to do this $1.3 million of estuary clean up.

Most of the marinas on the Alameda side of the estuary and Oakland as well are private and therefore are not able to directly take advantage of the AWAF Fund or of the VTIP Program. It would be a good thing if these cities could apply for these funds.

Another thing that would be very good is if Alameda County instituted anchor-out ordinances for the Oakland Estuary much the same as San Francisco County did for Clipper Cove at Treasure Island and as Contra Costa County and Solano County have done for waters in their jurisdictions.

If BCDC could bring pressure to bear on Alameda County to get an ordinance instituted that would make anchor-out ordinances clear on the Oakland Estuary that would be great.

Chair Wasserman asked: Are there any estimates of the total quantity of leakage from the abandoned boats?

Ms. Meagan Snyder responded: I am Meagan Snyder with Sector San Francisco Incident Management Division. I am the Abandoned Vessels Program Coordinator. Currently we do not have the authority to remove these vessels. We can only take the oil and the hazmat off of them.

We have been going onboard of certain abandoned vessels to quantify how much hazmat is in there. We’ve created a database that has quantified approximately 150 vessels. We have recently uploaded that to the NOAA ERMA Program that is available for public viewing.

We are doing an update pretty soon and we’re going to try and include the total amounts of hazmat found.

Chair Wasserman commented: It is worth the Committee exploring working with Alameda and other jurisdictions regarding establishment of clear anchor-out ordinances.

This may be an area of collaboration and cooperation with local jurisdictions that could be beneficial.

Commissioner Scharff asked: What seems to be causing this acceleration of abandoned vessels that you mentioned?

Mr. Bill Price answered: The economic downturn is responsible for a lot of this. Up until the 60s a recreational boat cost a lot of money and many people were not able to afford them. Then fiberglass boats were introduced that were inexpensive to build and people could afford them.

As those boats started coming into the market they were snapped up like crazy. The 1960s boat is now going on 53 years old and made out of fiberglass. Most people in the market for a boat do not want anything to do with these fiberglass boats.

Commissioner Gibbs commented: Mr. Chair, could you take the census of the Committee to see if the last two items could be continued to the next meeting?

Chair Wasserman responded: Yes, absolutely. If the Commission accepts, we would postpone the last two items to the next Commission meeting; that is the Approval of the Annual Report and the Rising Sea Level Report.

I don’t need a motion for this. If there is no objection from the Commission the Chair will exercise his prerogative to do that.

Executive Director Goldzband commented: You certainly can as individuals can always support legislation. But this is not a BCDC position that you are taking. You are taking it as a county supervisor or a member of the public or whatever.

Commissioner McGrath added: One of the things that I would like to see come back from staff is what the barriers are to perhaps legislation that might go somewhat further in streamlining the process of dealing with these abandoned vessels.

10.Briefing on the Joint Policy Commission Regional Sea Level Rise Strategy. This iem was postponed until the next BCDC meeting.

11.New Business. No new business was discussed.

12.Old Business. No old business was discussed.

13.Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Gioia seconded by Commissioner Gilmore, the meeting adjourned in memory of Senator Nicolas Petris at 3:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Executive Director

Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of April 18, 2013