Minutes of March 3, 2011 Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order.The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Ferry Building, Second Floor in San Francisco, California at 1:10 p.m.
2.Roll Call. Present were Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners, Addiego, Apodaca, Bates Chan, Chiu, Fossum (represented by Alternate Kato), Gibbs, Groom, Jordan Hallinan, Hicks (represented by Alternate Johnson), Lundstrom, McGrath, Moy, Nelson (represented by Alternate Ranchod), Sartipi, Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Shirakawa (represented by Alternate Carruthers). Also present was Quintin Mecke, representing Assembly member Tom Ammiano.
Not Present were: The Resources Agency (Baird), Sonoma County (Brown), Department of Finance (Finn), Governors Appointee (Randolph & Goldzband), Marin County (McGlashan), Napa County (Wagenknecht), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Ziegler) and Alameda County (Vacant).
3. Public Comment Period. Vice Chair Halsted called for public comment after announcing that a quorum was present.
Before public comment Commissioner Carruthers commented that he was proud to be associated with BCDC because of the role that it played in putting out the Sub tidal Habitat Goal Report.
This report creates a basis for proactive management of the part of the Bay that is under the surface and he encouraged all the Commissioners to read it.
Public comment consisted of the following:
Julie Finley a resident of Strawberry Point and a member of Strawberry Point Homeowner’s Association commented: Recently the members of the Board of the Association, without a members meeting or other input from most of the residents, applied to BCDC for a, Dogs On Leash, sign approval which many members of both the public and our Homeowner’s Association oppose.
On a staff level that sign was approved. We believe the sign and the world that it proposes severely and adversely impacts public access to Strawberry Point and is directly contrary to the terms and conditions of the permit that was issued for development of Strawberry Point about 20 years ago.
This proposed rule, if enacted, will discourage all people from coming to Strawberry Point. Some members of Strawberry Point would like to see their property become a private, gated community and this is a move on their part to make it unfriendly and unwelcome to members of the public who visit there.
I would like the staff to revoke the approval of the, Dogs On Leash, sign and bring this to a more full discussion.
Betsy Defries stated: I’m a member of the public and I walk my dog at Strawberry Point. I wrote to the Commission before the permit was approved to oppose and to also give information with regard to the fact that the Strawberry Point Homeowner’s Association were preventing other Strawberry Point homeowners from speaking at the meetings and wouldn’t allow the public to speak at the meetings and a small group of people ramrodded this through.
I think that the Commission has been hoodwinked and it should revoke this approval and press the Homeowner’s Association to allow a full and open meeting with all parties affected by this.
This is a thinly-veiled attempt to privatize a public space by very few people and the Commission needs to recognize that fact and it needs to make sure that the public has access to that land.
Jill Templeton a resident of Strawberry Point commented: I’ve been at Strawberry Point all of my life and the homes along the shoreline were added about 30 years ago with the proviso that it remain open and accessible to the public.
We were very surprised to learn that the change in signage and usage had been approved without any public input whatsoever. This space is about one-half mile long and is a very special space and there is a large community of dog walkers that come out daily and meet much like a town commons where we all check in and participate in being part of the community and part of the public.
So I also urge you to reconsider the approval of the change in the signage.
Ms. Penny Wells a member of Bay Access and also Bay Area Sea Kayakers shared the following with the Commission: I’d like to comment on the Coast Guard in San Pablo Bay and when they’re going to be closing sections of the Bay for maneuvers.
I understand that there are provisions in place that will limit and try to make this easier on the boating public. The concern I have is that there really is no effective communication that will inform hunters, fishermen, kayakers, sailors and other people when the closures will occur.
Had there been a forum for public comment when all of these different factions could have come and expressed their concerns and offered suggestions it might have helped a lot more.
Ms. Tina Sebay stated: I’m a vector ecologist for the San Mateo County Mosquito and Vector Control. I am also a San Francisco State student doing research on climate change and its impact on low-income communities around the Bay area.
There has been a long legacy of environmental injustice throughout the country even in this liberal San Francisco Bay area.
I want to make an emotional plea that we need to incorporate effective outreach to these low-income communities.
I’m just speaking for myself because this is something that I feel very strongly about.
Mr. Bob Planthole from San Francisco commented: It’s important that you do explicit outreach to organizations serving people with disabilities and senior housing before placing restrictions on dog owners.
People with disabilities have not been considered in the media discussions about restrictions on dog access recreation.
Commissioner McGrath commented: I’m satisfied that the BCDC staff substantively did an excellent job on the Coast Guard Project and I’ve had some discussion with them on how we can improve our ability to actively listen to the public.
The theme that I would like to stress is that the public has things that they know we don’t know and the more we can get them into our process the better our results will be.
4. Approval of Minutes of January 20, 2011 Meeting. Vice Chair Halsted entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of January 20, 2011.
Commissioner Gibbs queried: Madame Chair, would it be appropriate to ask the Executive Director about the dog walking issue at this point?
Executive Director Travis answered: My current Golden Retriever loves swimming in San Francisco Bay. That said, the issue of dogs on leash and off leash have come before the Commission.
We have always stressed that this issue is best addressed at the local level, at the neighborhood level, at the homeowner’s association level.
What was presented to us was a question as to whether it would be appropriate to change some signs that are at a public access area that is administered by a homeowner’s group pursuant to a BCDC permit. Public access is required there. They wanted to change the signs from, Dogs Must Be On Leash or Under Control At All Times, to, Dogs Must Be On Leash.
We didn’t think that was a material change that would adversely impact public access. We told them that would be approvable.
We understand that they are going to take it to a vote of their homeowner’s association now and make a final decision.
Commissioner Gibbs replied: Well, apparently from the public testimony, that decision was already made. And it was already made, according to some of the testimony that we have received, with some procedural flaws.
Executive Director Travis responded: Again, we think that this is the sort of issue that should be addressed by the homeowner’s association at the local level or at the neighborhood level rather than by a state agency like BCDC.
Commissioner Gibbs continued: And if we are being asked to look into this matter in that there may not have been a fair hearing, what options do we have if we’d like to –
Executive Director Travis responded: Well, you can schedule this for a public hearing. You can take the matter up and you can vote on it to direct the staff to give us policy direction as to how you want to handle this specific one.
I will advise you that if you do that you’re going to spend a lot of time doing that.
Commissioner Gibbs asked: Are there ways, short of a full, public hearing, such as asking the enforcement staff to convene the interested parties?
Executive Director Travis answered: Well, again, we can do this but is this really the way you want us to spend our time?
We are making these decisions on a routine basis. Questions come up to us; is this an acceptable change in the administration of the way the public access area is managed?
Again, we can bring these to your attention. We investigated this one. We thought it was reasonable.
But, again, if your direction to us is to schedule a hearing so that you can take it up and vote on it, we will certainly do that.
Commissioner Gibbs responded: I think 98 percent of the time we approve those without any review. I think in this case there have been questions raised about the procedure and about the substance. This issue seems as important as a number of issues that we spend some time on concerning public access.
I’m trying to see if there’s a way that it can be re-opened without having a full-blown hearing.
Executive Director Travis replied: We will look into it again and further evaluate it and if our determination is that there is a reason for making another decision, we will certainly do so.
Commissioner Gibbs added: Can I ask that all the speakers today who came and spoke on the issue be notified or invited to part of that discussion.
Executive Director Travis answered: I didn’t intent to hold our own public hearing (laughter). There’s some difference of opinion as to whether the homeowner’s association has already made this decision or they’re about to.
If they haven’t made the decision we will urge them to have a full, public meeting and allow members of the public to participate in that discussion.
Commissioner Bates commented: If the homeowner’s association takes this issue up and decides that they want to make some modification to the way their signage is; we’ll reflect that in our policy, is that right?
Executive Director Travis replied: No. What we would do is determine whether that decision and that change would adversely impact public access.
Commissioner Bates continued: I guess I’m having a little trouble about access. I mean, the dogs can go there now. People can go there now. There’s no access question.
The question is whether dogs should be off-leash or on-leash.
Executive Director Travis answered: That’s correct. But it’s a different experience if the dog is on-leash as opposed to off-leash.
Commissioner Lundsrom added: As I understand BCDC policy, they look to the local entity that has control over a particular area and different cities have different ordinances about dogs on-leash or dogs off-leash.
MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved, seconded by Commissioner Carruthers, to approve the January 20, 2011 Minutes. The motion carried by voice vote with Commissioners Addiego, Sartipi, Chan, Johnson, Apodaca and Vice Chair Halsted abstaining.
5. Report of the Chair. Vice Chair Halsted reported on the following:
a. New Commissioners. A number of appointments to the Commission have been made since our last meeting.
The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors has re-appointed Supervisor Valerie Brown to serve as the County’s representative on BCDC and has re-appointed Supervisor Efren Carrillo to serve as the alternate.
The Napa County Board of Supervisors has re-appointed Supervisor Brad Wagenknecht to serve as the County’s representative on BCDC and has re-appointed Supervisor Keith Caldwell to serve as the County’s alternate representative.
The Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors has re-appointed Supervisor George Shirakawa to serve as the County’s representative on BCDC and has re-appointed Eric Carruthers to serve as the alternate.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors has appointed Supervisor Wilma Chan to serve as the County’s new representative on BCDC and has confirmed the appointment of Alameda Mayor Marie Gilmore as Commissioner Chan’s alternate.
The Association of Bay Area Governments has appointed South San Francisco City Councilmember Mark Addiego to represent West Bay cities on the Commission and has appointed Newark City Councilmember Ana Apodaca to represent South Bay cities on BCDC. Mark and Ana have previously served as ABAG’s alternate Commissioners.
Finally, Assembly Speaker John Perez has appointed Assembly member Tom Ammiano to serve as the Assembly’s ex-officio member of the Commission.
b. Next BCDC Meeting. We are going to cancel our next regularly-scheduled meeting on March 17th. Therefore, our next meeting will be five weeks from today on April 7th. At that meeting, which will be held here at the Ferry Building, we will take up the following matters:
(1) We will consider language options for addressing climate change in the Bay Plan.
(2) We will have a briefing on planning for the San Francisco waterfront.
(3) We will consider a status report on the progress we are making in carrying out our strategic plan.
c. Ex-Parte Communications. That completes my report. In case you have inadvertently forgotten to provide our staff with a report on any written or oral ex-parte communications, I invite Commissioners who have engaged in any such communications to report on them at this point.
Vice Chair Halsted then moved on to the Report of the Executive Director.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Travis:
a. Budget. In January we provided you with a copy of the budget Governor Brown proposed for BCDC for the fiscal year beginning on July 1st, which is essentially the same as the budget we have this fiscal year. This year the Legislature is expediting its process of considering the Governor’s budget and both houses have already approved our budget as proposed. I’ll keep you apprised of any further budget news as it occurs.
b. Bay Plan Climate Change Amendments. At our last meeting I reported to you on the status of the many meetings we have had with stakeholders involved in amending the Bay Plan to address climate change. Those meetings are continuing this month. At this time, it looks like we will not be able to release a revised staff recommendation until April at the earliest for a public hearing in May and a possible vote in June. I’ll keep you apprised of the status of this important work as it moves forward.
c. Office Lease. We’ve been in our current office for 10 years. Knowing that our lease expires at the end of this month, about two years ago we requested that the California Department of General Services, which is responsible for providing offices for all state departments, renew our lease. The negotiations between General Services and the Shorenstein Company, which manages the building we’re in, went smoothly and we reached agreement on an annual rental rate of $50.52 per square foot, which reflects the current state of the market.
We expected the final lease to be signed in mid-February. Instead, two weeks ago we were informed by the Shorenstein Company that our lease would not be renewed and that we would have to vacate our office as soon as we can to accommodate plans by MetLife, which owns a majority share of the building, to remove all remaining asbestos in the building.
Realistically, it will take the Department of General Services at least a year to find another suitable location for us, negotiate a lease that we can afford and get us moved.
In the meantime, our current lease obligates us to pay a 50 percent penalty each month we remain in our current office after our lease expires. We don’t have funding in our budget to pay this additional $390,000 cost over the next year.
To deal with this crisis, last week I reached an agreement with the Shorenstein Company that they will waive this penalty provision and give us as much as two years to find another suitable location.
In addition to considering other floors in the building we’re in now and other buildings nearby, we’re also exploring the possibility of co-locating our offices with our Joint Policy Committee partners––MTC, ABAG and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
The Air District owns its headquarters building in San Francisco and MTC and ABAG own the MetroCenter in Oakland.
The Air District’s building needs extensive renovations and MTC and ABAG have outgrown their offices. So the three agencies plan to sell their two buildings and buy one large enough for all of them.
If they purchase a building in San Francisco (as you know, by law our office must be in San Francisco) and if their building contains enough excess space to accommodate BCDC, we could rent space from them.
I’ll keep you apprised on this story as it unfolds.
d. Gateway Park. As you may recall, at our last meeting a few residents of West Oakland raised concerns about the planning for the new Gateway Park which will be established at the eastern end of the new Bay Bridge span that’s being constructed.
Over the past few weeks, our staff has met with community organizations in West Oakland, Mayor Jean Quan’s staff and Oakland Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan.
We were joined at these meeting by staff from the East Bay Regional Park District, Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Toll Authority and our planning consultant because all of us––in addition to ABAG, East Bay MUD, the Port of Oakland, the City of Oakland and the California Transportation Commission have been involved in planning the park and the trails that will provide access from East Bay communities through the park to the bike and pedestrian access way on the new bridge.
At these meetings we’ve emphasized that we share the community goals of reducing truck traffic and industrial emissions in West Oakland, and to that end, we have no plans for doing anything that would compromise achieving those goals.
Even though we’ve held open meetings and workshops over the past year to provide opportunities for the general public to help plan the park, we’ve committed to redoubling our efforts to ensure that the West Oakland community can be fully engaged in the Gateway Park planning process and that the new park will be an asset that can be fully enjoyed by the citizens of Oakland.
e. Personnel. Alonso Barahona has joined our staff as an intern in our Sediment Management Unit.
He received a BA in Sociology and Raza Studies from San Francisco State and has worked for a community clinic and SamTrans and was a Latino Issues Forum Fellow.
f. Enforcement Case. Last year the Commission requested that the Attorney General’s Office file a lawsuit against the Blue Whale Sailing School, which is located on the shoreline of Alviso Slough in San Jose.
The school’s owner, John Asuncion, had not complied with a cease and desist order you issued to resolve violations on the school property.
In early February, Santa Clara County Superior Court issued a default judgment in favor of BCDC.
The judgment upholds your cease and desist order and the $30,000 penalty you imposed, awards $396,000 in additional penalties and requires the removal of all illegal structures and restoration of the property.
If you have any questions about this case, I’m sure your Deputy Attorney General Alice Reynolds, who represented BCDC, would have been happy to give you more details. However, Alice is in Hawaii.
g. Statement of Economic Interests. A few weeks ago we sent you a memo reminding you that you have to file your annual Statement of Economic Interests, which is usually referred to as a Form 700, by April Fool’s Day.
The memo explains in detail what you have to do. If you need assistance getting the forms that must be filed, please contact Sandra Sneeringer of our staff.
If you have questions about the law, please direct them to Tim Eichenberg or John Bowers, our staff attorneys.
h. Subtidal Habitat Goals. I’d like to call to your attention the final report on the Subtidal Habitat Goals project that we sent to you last week. If you have any questions about the report or the project, please direct them to Brenda Goeden.
We also sent you a quarterly report on Regional Issues and Lindy Lowe prepared that report and can answer your questions.
That does complete my report for today.
7. Commissioner Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Travis stated that on February 18th, we sent you a listing of the administrative matters our staff is prepared to act upon. Brad McCrea is available to respond to any questions you may have about the matters on the listings.
Vice Chair Halsted mentioned that Items 8, 9 and 10 all deal with contracts that are all related. Therefore, Joe LaClair will give us a brief presentation on each one then present all three staff recommendations.
8. Consideration of a contract with the Port of San Francisco Regarding Proposed Amendments of the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan and the San Francisco Bay Plan;
9. Consideration of a Contract with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency Regarding Proposed Amendments of the San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan and the San Francisco Bay Plan;
10. Consideration of a Contract with the Aquatic Sciences Center to Provide Temporary Staff for the Commission. Mr. LaClair made the following presentation: I am here before you today to present staff’s recommendation on three contracts.
The staff recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to execute separate contracts with the Port of San Francisco, the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Aquatic Science Center.
Each of these contracts is related to plan amendments requested by outside parties.
The Commission’s regulation provide that when such amendments are requested, the outside party making the request must pay the Commission’s cost of considering the amendment requests.
The first contract would be with the Port of San Francisco which has agreed to provide up to $100,000 to the Commission for developing and considering amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, which is an element of the San Francisco Bay Plan.
The amendments are needed to accommodate facilities that are necessary for San Francisco to host the America’s Cup Races and for development of a new cruise ship terminal.
The second contract with the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency would cover the Commission’s costs of processing Bay Plan and Seaport Plan amendments to facilitate redevelopment of the Hunter’s Point Naval Ship Yard and the city-owned portions of Candlestick Point.
The contract amount would not exceed $80,966 and would cover the Commission’s costs of reviewing and acting on the agencies’ request that the Commission remove the Port priority use area designation at Hunter’s Point Naval Ship Yard and modify the park priority use designation at Candlestick Point State Recreation Area. The California State Parks Department would also be party to the amendment application.
The third contract was initiated by a request from Solano County to amend the Bay Plan and Suisun Marsh Preservation Plan and the County’s Local Protection Plan component. You previously approved a contract under which Solano County is providing the Commission up to $80,350 to process these amendment requests.
The purpose of the recommended contract is to provide some of the funds along with other outside funding to the Aquatic Science Center to handle these amendments and other work that is supported by grants and other outside funding. If you approve this recommended $49,000 contract with the Aquatic Science Center they will provide you with analysis, reports and related to the amendments of the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan, the San Francisco Bay Plan Amendment concerning climate change and the regional airport planning system analysis. The staff is initiating this contract relationship with the Aquatic Science Center for this modest amount to determine whether this arrangement is suitable for dealing with similar work funded by outside parties.
The meeting notice incorrectly indicated that this contract would provide the Commission with temporary staff. The contract will explicitly specify that the Aquatic Science Center will provide the Commission with work products not staff services. We believe this approach is fully consistent with the Governor’s Executive Order but we will consult with the controller agencies in Sacramento and if they find it necessary we will request their approval of the contract under the provisions of the Executive Order that allows such exemptions.
The staff also recommends that the Commission authorize the Executive Director to amend these contracts if that proves necessary so long as the amendments do not involve substantial changes in either the scope or the amounts.
Commissioner Ranchod stated: If we approve this last contract will the funding that the Solano county provided for the project still be sufficient?
Mr. LaClair responded: Oh, absolutely. The way the process works is that we provide the applicant with an estimate of what we believe the work will cost and then we contract with that entity for an amount that is 120 percent of the estimate to provide a 20 percent contingency for costs over-and-above staff’s estimate.
Vice Chair Halsted asked for any public comment on these items and received none.
Commissioner Carruthers asked: Do we want separate motions for each one?
Commissioner McGrath added: I would appreciate separate motions. I plan to abstain from voting on any item that provides funding for any organization that I’m associated with.
Vice Chair Halsted agreed that a separate motion for each item was in order.
MOTION: Commissioner Carruthers moved Item 8, seconded by Commissioner Chiu. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions or opposition.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiu moved Item 9, seconded by Commissioner Carruthers. The motion passed by voice vote with no abstentions or opposition.
MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved item 10, seconded by Commissioner Caruthers. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition and Commissioner McGrath abstaining
11. Briefing on Public Access for Persons with Disabilities. Mr. Richard Skaff, Executive Director of Designing Accessible Communities addressed the Commission:
We are finding that recreation and access to open spaces is very important for the general publics’ health.
We’ve had the problem of a lack of thoughtfulness with regard to access for people with disabilities.
I hope my presentation will encourage BCDC to find ways to assure that we go further than what has been done in the past insofar as public access for disabled people is concerned.
As we age, we’re going to lose some level of hearing, vision, cognitive function and mobility. We need to start designing communities with this in mind and that serve people of all ages.
Some currently permitted projects have problems with accessibility for the disabled. These were probably inadvertently developed this way.
I would suggest that as part of the requirements of BCDC permitting that you have a statement in all your permits that states, all the accessibility features must be maintained for the life of the project.
I would suggest that BCDC strongly consider adopting guidelines for design and construction affecting disabled people.
On BCDC’s website there must be information on your ADA staff coordinator and you must have an ADA staff coordinator.
Projects requiring BCDC approval should cover the cost of an access expert to both plan and review the project before it is approved by BCDC and site review the project once it is completed to assure that it was built according to plan and whether the project completion was done correctly.
There is a problem with the McAteer-Petris Act because it was written before regulations like the Americans With Disabilities Act came into being and it has never been updated to be brought into compliance with the Act.
Mr. Planthole commented: I support Mr. Skaff’s comments and encourage BCDC to get involved with these issues.
CEQA AND NEPA were passed well before ADA and this also causes problems with access.
A recent court decision may be the basis for requiring a regional funding or permitting agency to do some monitoring of accessibility issues.
BCDC might want to consider using a checklist of items regarding accessibility in its permitting process.
Commissioner McGrath commented: Although I think this is an area that BCDC should be involved in, I’m sure I would not agree with Mr. Skaff on everything. Our inclusion of what we think is feasible for accessibility for people with differing abilities is certainly an area where BCDC needs to be involved.
Commissioner Carruthers added: There are other agencies that are dealing with these issues as well.
Vice Chair Halsted commented: I would ask that we look at these suggestions and try to integrate them into what we’re thinking in the future. I would ask that staff report back to us on the suggestions.
Commissioner Ranchod commented: We’re supposed to appoint a public access subcommittee of our Citizen’s Advisory Committee later this year. I hope that staff will work to identify some names, resources permitting, so we can appoint both that committee and that subcommittee which is going to look at the issue of disability access.
12. Briefing on the Local Government Adaptation Assistance Program. Sara Polgar made the following presentation: I am a planner that’s been with BCDC for over five years.
The goal of this program is to help local governments to assess their communities’ climate risks and plan for and implement adaptation strategies.
Local governments are on the forefront of having to deal with the impacts of climate change and they face some tremendous barriers in doing this.
They lack the funding, the staff, accessible and relevant information, lack of incentives and/or political will for doing adaptation, overlapping authorities, climate change impacts don’t happen within nice, neat boundaries.
We interviewed local planners and city engineers as to what they thought was an appropriate role for BCDC to be taking in supporting them in planning for climate change impacts and implementing strategies.
What they wanted from us was that they felt that BCDC should be providing the information that they needed to consider impacts of sea level rise in their work.
They also felt that we should be providing example strategies and actions that local governments could apply in their planning efforts and in their shoreline development projects.
And they wanted BCDC to be a facilitator, a convener for the region to move forward in a coordinated approach to adaptation.
They wanted us to be helping the region to come to agreement on everything from impact scenarios to adaptation approaches to shoreline design standards.
Based on this input we identified program components that would all serve the over-arching goal of increasing Bay area local governments capacity to do adaptation planning and implement adaptation strategies.
The key ones were to directly provide and to help local governments gain access to resources like information, data, tools, training that are relevant and supportive of their efforts to assess their climate change impacts and start implementing adaptive strategies.
And we also recognized the need to reach out to other organizations and agencies at all levels and try to coordinate on providing these resources.
We identified a target audience of trying to direct our assistance efforts towards addressing the needs of planners and managers working in shoreline land use planning, public works, parks and open-space districts, flood control districts, wastewater authorities and other resource-based managers.
Our initial effort was to review this huge amount of information on impacts and adaptation and filter through it and compile a resource binder or list that is most relevant to Bay area local governments.
Education and outreach has been a big thrust of our early adaptation assistance efforts. This is driven by the need for increased awareness and capacity for adaptation planning.
This effort is also driven by the availability of resources to support this work.
We’ve used feedback from our earlier workshops to target some of our more recent and upcoming efforts to address the immediate needs of local governments.
A key emphasis has been relying on our local and regional agency experts and scholars to help us bring resources to the Bay area that will support local government adaptation planning.
All workshops have been fully attended and over one-half of the attendees have been from local and county staff and half of those have been city and county land use planners.
What they wanted next was specific examples of planning efforts and projects from the Bay area in particular that consider climate change impacts and include adaptation.
They also wanted more hands-on training experiences with data and tools and planning responses that they could utilize right now.
Many of the adaptation assistance program efforts over the next 18 months will be directed towards directly supporting the Adapting to Rising Tides Project or ART Project and the regional impacts and vulnerability assessment.
I am presenting photos of the King Tide Photo Initiative on behalf of NOAA who has been the BCDC lead on this.
King Tides are extreme high tides that occur when the sun the moon’s gravitational forces reinforce each other. It happens two times a year but it gets pretty dramatic during the winter when there’s additional surge from storms.
This initiative encourages citizens to photograph extreme high tides to engage the public around the idea that today’s high tide is tomorrow’s daily average tide with sea level rise.
This project has been beyond-our-expectations successful so there are more and more photos that are coming up. This is a great resource for anybody that is trying to talk about these issues of sea level rise to make it real.
Commissioner Lundstrom commented: I’d like to thank Sara and her group from the standpoint of local government. This is a great example of what BCDC can do in solid material and perhaps some more information in the form of flyers for those of us that can pass this on.
Commissioner Carruthers added: I simply want to support what Commissioner Lundstrom said. I had no idea that we were doing so much and it really is impressive.
Commissioner McGrath stated: I want to really appreciate the photographic recordkeeping. The 1983 storm was a dry-run of what we’re going to see and pretty much everything that flooded then will flood at about a 20 inch tide.
Executive Director Travis added: We have a two-step process in education of local governments. I go out and make a presentation and then we send staff to work with the local governments and we’re running at about 50 percent there.
While we’re extraordinarily proud of what Sara and her colleagues are doing in the Bay area I did want to make you aware that the show is going on the road and NOAA has invited and supported our staff to tailor training for local officials in the Galapagos, Vietnam and in Indonesia. And they have been there and they have done that.
13. Consideration of Strategic Plan Status Report. Executive Director Travis commented: The report this month has five changes in it. We are really facing the impact of limitations on staff resources and increasing volume of workload that we are having to deal with.
We are getting up to the end of this strategic plan so we’re trying not to have deadlines for completing something that are after when we are going to have our next strategic planning workshop.
I’m asking for your approval of these five changes.
MOTION: Commissioner Lundstrom moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Ranchod. The motion passed by a voice vote with no abstentions or opposition.
14. New Business. There was no new business.
15.Old Business. There was no old business.
16. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Vasquez, seconded by Commissioner McGrath, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.
Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of April 21, 2011
R. SEAN RANDOLPH, Chair