Minutes of October 6, 2011 Commission Meeting
1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Ferry Building, Port of San Francisco Board Room, Second Floor, San Francisco, California at 1:10 p.m.
2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Addiego, Apodaca, Bates, Brown (represented by Alternate Carrillo), Chan (represented by Alternate Gilmore), Chiu, Fossum (represented by Alternate Kato), Gibbs, Gioia, Goldzband, Groom, Lundstrom, McGrath, Moy, Nelson, Sartipi (represented by Alternate Richards), Sears, Shirakawa (represented by Alternate Carruthers), Spering (represented by Alternate Vasquez), Vierra, Wagenknecht (represented by Alternate Caldwell) and Ziegler. Legislative member William C. Taylor was also present.
Not Present were: Department of Finance (Finn), Governor’s Appointee (Jordan Hallinan) and U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers (Hicks).
3. Public Comment Period. Chair Randolph called for public comment on subjects that were not on the agenda. Comments would be restricted to three minutes per speaker.
Mr. Whitaker addressed the Commission: Good afternoon. My name is Jamie Whitaker. I live in the Rincon Hill neighborhood over at Main Street and Harrison Street.
I'm here actually because I was under the notion that you all will be considering changing the Special Area Plan rules that affect the Rincon Point Open Water Basin. I was at a September 12th Design Review Board Meeting and the staff at that time mentioned that there would be a decision today.
I'm here to just implore you to not rush into the decision to allow for a permanent boat marina. Don't pave paradise and make it a boat parking lot.
So to lose that, to have that privatized, to have it become a private boat marina permanently, basically, would be a real shame.
Mr. Coleman stated: Good afternoon, Chair Randolph, Commissioners. I am speaking on Item 9 since you don't have a public hearing today.
The Bay Planning Coalition applauds BCDC on the great strides the staff and Commissioners took to resolve areas of dispute in the proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment.
The actions of the stakeholders involved in negotiating the details of the Plan have shown that the business community can and should be fully engaged on all issues of this great magnitude.
I am happy to report that on September 20, 2011, the Board of Directors of the Bay Planning Coalition officially endorsed the July 29, 2011 release of the Plan.
BPC looks forward to initiating mechanisms and working collaboratively with BCDC, the business community, local government and others to address climate change and adaptation strategies. Thank you very much.
Mr. David Lewis addressed the Commission: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. David Lewis, Executive Director of Save the Bay.
Save the Bay is celebrating our 50th anniversary of accomplishments. One of the frequent questions that I get is, what's really the number one accomplishment of Save the Bay in those last 50 years? And it's all of you; it's this Commission. Not only because that was really Save the Bay's first major accomplishment and not only because it's lasted, but because it's actually been replicated in so many places because it has worked so successfully and still today is a model for how open government and transparent government and public participation can work.
It's one of the largest creations in terms of its membership, one of the most diverse. And as far as I know, the most accessible in California state government. And that's something that everyone should be proud of, whether the Bay is their primary consideration or not. So it's our privilege to enjoy a continuing special relationship and we have a strong feeling of pride about BCDC almost all the time.
I hope that many of you will be able to join us on November 3rd when we'll be celebrating together here in San Francisco at a gala at the Metreon. And if you haven't already received information about that and would like some I would be happy to get it to you, thanks very much.
Ms. Catherine Lyons stated: Good afternoon, Commissioners. This is also on Agenda Item 9, the Bay Plan Amendment. My name is Catherine Lyons, I am here from the Bay Area Council.
I am here to announce our support, reiterate our support for the amendment to the Bay Plan that addresses the important issue of climate change in the Bay Area. This has been a long and collaborative process and we are very happy to be at this point.
Again, we reiterate our support for this document as a leading example of regional collaboration to counter sea level rise but this is just the beginning of a long-term discussion. The real work begins now and the next step is to determine a long-term plan for the region on sea level rise and climate change, with this as our foundation.
We look forward to working with you in the future and we thank you again, Commissioners, for your continued leadership, thank you.
Ms. Margaret Zegart commented: I wanted to thank the Commissioners who represent the people in our areas who work with the BCDC staff. And I do hope that this will be a consensus adoption.
I thank the FOCUS Program for having the vision to change their initial recommendations for SB 375 locations and flood plains by saying now that the area of Southern Marin adjacent to the shores and the Bay of San Francisco, Richardson Bay, that this area now is a primary restoration. Lots of insight has gone into the changes that are made and I hope that you really adopt these because I think that they are splendid results of cooperation and coordination in the region. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Campos addressed the Commission: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, BCDC Commissioners and staff. My name is Paul Campos with the BIA Bay Area.
I just returned from a long trip to Europe and spent a significant amount of time in Copenhagen and Stockholm and developed quite a few thoughts about sea level rise. But I'm not going to share those with you and subject you to a whole lot of pontificating. So I am just going to say that I associate myself with the remarks of John Coleman and Catherine Lyons. I am very pleased to stand here and support adoption of the proposed amendments, thank you.
Mr. Tim Frank stated: I'm Tim Frank and I'm the Director of the Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods. And I'd just like to, I think, follow in the same vein and give you some complimentary remarks.
Sustainability, as you know, is a composite value and I think your own documents actually reflect that. If you look at usage of this term the world over, people recognize that sustainability is about addressing environmental, social and economic values.
And the challenge of doing that is, of course, that bringing together the constituents for sustainability is hard because they don't all get along, they don't always like each other.
You know, the challenge there is to get folks to actually work together and I think that requires a skilled convener and you have clearly demonstrated that you can play that role. And I think that the ultimate product that you see reflects your hard work and the full values of sustainability. And I think you deserve some recognition for that so thank you.
Seeing no additional speakers, Chair Randolph moved on to Item four, Approval of Minutes.
4. Approval of Minutes of the September 1, 2011 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion and a second to adopt the minutes of September 1, 2011.
MOTION: Vice Chair Halsted moved, seconded by Commissioner Carrillo, to approve the September 1, 2011 Minutes. The motion carried by voice vote with Commissioner Vierra abstaining.
5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph reported on the following:
a. New Commissioner. At our last meeting I informed you that Brian Baird was leaving the California’s Natural Resources Agency and stepping down from his position as the Agency’s representative on BCDC.
I’m pleased to inform you that Resources Secretary John Laird has appointed Amy Vierra to replace Brian on the Commission. As you know, Amy has long been Brian’s alternate on BCDC and regularly attends our meetings. Amy, welcome to BCDC in your new capacity.
Departing Commissioner. Commissioner Joan Lundstrom, who has been ABAG’s representative of North Bay cities on the Commission for nearly a decade, is resigning from the Larkspur City Council effective October 15, 2011. As a result of her resignation, today will be her last meeting as a BCDC Commissioner.
I am sure I speak for the entire Commission in wishing Joan every happiness and in thanking her for her many contributions to the Commission, some of which are mentioned in the draft resolution of appreciation for Joan, which our staff has prepared. I would welcome a motion, second and affirmative vote to approve this resolution.
MOTION: Commissioner Gioia moved this item, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted. The motion to support the staff resolution was approved by voice vote with no opposition or abstentions.
Commissioner Lundstrom commented: I hold BCDC as a great example of how government should be run. Outreaching to local governments is to be admired and is held as an example in other areas too.
It has been a pleasure to serve and be part of this. I leave with regret but have to move on with the rest of my life.
c. Save The Bay. As we were informed at our last meeting, the organization Save The Bay is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. As requested by Commissioner Tom Bates, our staff has drafted a resolution of appreciation for Save The Bay. I would welcome a motion, second and affirmative vote to approve this resolution.
MOTION: Commissioner Bates moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Chiu. The motion passed by voice vote with no opposition or abstentions.
d. Next BCDC Meeting. It won’t be necessary to hold a second meeting this month. Therefore, we will cancel our October 20th meeting and will hold our next meeting four weeks from today on November 3rd. At that meeting, which will be held here at the Ferry Building, we will take up the following matters:
(1) We will hold a public hearing and vote on whether to initiate the process of considering amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan to accommodate the America’s Cup yacht races.
(2) We will hold a public hearing and vote on an application to build a new public park along the San Francisco waterfront at Brannan Street
(3) We will hold a public hearing on deleting the port priority use designation in the Bay Plan at the closed Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco.
(4) We will receive a briefing on the work of the Delta Stewardship Council in formulating its Delta Plan.
e. 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.
Commissioner Carrillo reported: I’ve had numerous emails and phone calls from J.T. Wick representing the Port of Sonoma. And they do have an application before BCDC.
Commissioner Kato reported: I’ve also had numerous conversations with members of the public regarding the Sea Level Rise Plan.
Chair Randolph moved on to the Executive Director’s Report.
6. Report of the Executive Director. Executive Director Travis reported:
a. Deputy Attorney General. Please note that in today’s performance the role of Deputy Attorney General, which is usually played by Alice Reynolds, is being played by Chris Tiedemann.
Chris will continue in this role for the foreseeable future because Governor Brown has appointed Alice as his Deputy Secretary for Law Enforcement and Counsel at the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Her duties there will focus on keeping another of her former colleagues, Matt Rodriquez, out of trouble as he carries out his duties as the Secretary of Cal EPA.
BCDC has been particularly well-served by Alice Reynolds, not just when she represented us so well in litigation, but more because she was available to work closely with us to solve problems so that litigation was unnecessary. We wish her every success in her new position.
Personnel. Another bright young professional has joined our staff as a legal intern. Daniel Balich received an undergraduate degree in the philosophy of law and morality from Tulane University and is a graduate of Golden Gate University School of Law where he served as the editor for the Environmental Law Review.
He has worked in the San Francisco District Attorney’s Gang Unit and for multiple civil litigation firms specializing in toxic tort and construction defect defense. Among the experiences that prepared Daniel to work for BCDC was going through four separate hurricanes, Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma, in one year.
c. Staff Reports. I want to call to your attention two reports we sent you recently. The first is a report on the 2011 California King Tides Initiative. Heidi Nutters, our NOAA Coastal Fellow who is the godmother of this project, can tell you more about it if you’re interested.
The second is a staff report regarding the proposal to delete the port priority use designation in the Bay Plan at the closed Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco.
As Chair Randolph mentioned, we’ll have a public hearing on this proposal at our November 3rd meeting. We’re required to mail reports on Bay Plan amendments at least 30 days before the public hearing, so please hang onto this report and bring it to our next meeting.
7. Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Travis stated that two listings were sent to the Commissioners, one on September 13th and the second supplemental listing on September 30th. Bob Batha is available to respond to any questions you may have about the matters on the listings.
Chair Randolph moved on to Item 8.
8. Consideration of a Contract with the Aquatic Sciences Center. Chief Planner LaClair reported the following: I’d like to present staff’s recommendation to you that you authorize the Executive Director to extend a contract with the Aquatic Sciences Center and increase the contract amount by $98,000.00 and authorize the Executive Director to amend the contract provided that the amendment does not involve any substantial changes in the amount or nature of the scope or services.
The Commission authorized this contract in March of this year and the staff executed the contract in May.
Under the contract the Aquatic Sciences Center, a joint powers authority of the San Francisco Estuary Institute provides the Commission with assistance with the Adapting To Rising Tides Project and amendments to the San Francisco Waterfront Special Area Plan.
This contract is necessary because the Commission has received several applications for Bay Plan Amendments recently including from the Port of San Francisco to process amendments to the Special Area Plan.
The Commission requires that applicants provide funding to cover the cost of such amendments so that the Commission can secure additional assistance to cover the added planning workload.
That concludes my presentation and I’m available for any questions you may have.
Chair Randolph asked if there was any public comment on this item. There were no questions from the Commissioners on this item.
MOTION: Commissioner Vasquez moved this item, seconded by Commissioner Lundstrom. The motion passed by a show of hands (24-0-0) with no abstentions or opposition.
Chair Randolph moved on to Item 9.
9. Vote on Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08 Which Would Revise Various Sections of the Bay Plan to Address Climate Change and ADD a New Climate Change Section. Chair Randolph announced that Will Travis would give some comments and then Joe LaClair would give the staff recommendation.
Executive Director Travis commented: As you all know, the process of amending the Bay Plan to deal with climate change has been long and difficult. We have been at it for two and a half years. We have held at least three dozen public hearings, workshops and meetings on the amendment language as it has evolved.
At our public hearing last month representatives from environmental organizations said they felt the amendment language before you today isn't quite as good as the version you considered six months ago.
And at that hearing you also heard from business and economic groups who felt the language is not precisely what they would like but it's better than it had been. And as a result, some of these groups have withdrawn their earlier opposition, and as you have heard today, some of them now support the recommendation before you.
Also local governments now seem satisfied that the amendments won't interfere with meeting their responsibilities to their citizens or impose new requirements that will be difficult for them to meet during these tough economic times.
Yet as I look back over the past two and a half years, I find that the essential elements of the amendment have remained unchanged.
From the outset the proposed amendment language has stressed the importance of using the latest scientific information when planning for sea level rise. It has stressed how critical it is to protect communities around the Bay from flooding. It has recognized the importance of continuing to protect the Bay. It has called for the formulation of a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy with broad stakeholder involvement. It has acknowledged the importance of wetland restoration in such a strategy and it has called for a case-by-case analysis of projects while the regional strategy is being developed.
Now the benchmark I use for knowing that the major elements in the amendment haven't changed is that over the past two and a half years I have made hundreds of presentations around the country and abroad describing what we are trying to accomplish to deal with climate change in the Bay Area and I haven't had to change my presentation.
Because as we have gone through the various iterations of the amendment language, our goals and the way we would achieve these goals have remained unchanged.
Now given all this, what has all the discussion over the past few years been all about and why didn't you simply adopt the language our staff initially proposed?
To some degree, it's taken us longer than it might have because we tried to run before we walked. Thirty months ago not everyone in the region was ready to deal with climate change.
Some challenged the science behind the sea level rise projections. Some weren't aware that the Bay Area would be especially vulnerable to flooding in the future. And some found the challenge so daunting and the potential cost so high, they were unwilling to face the problem. And as always, any suggestion that changes the status quo is resisted.
However, as the skeptics engaged with us during our lengthy deliberations, most of them have come around to acknowledging the value of our proposals.
And also, much of the concern about our initial proposal and much of the debate about the evolving language centered on initiatives we hadn't advanced and proposals we didn't endorse.
We never intended the amendment would expand the Commission's jurisdiction. We never suggested that the language would be binding on local governments outside our permit jurisdiction. We didn't want to make it more difficult to build infill and transit-oriented development. And we didn't want to abandon Bay protection.
Much of this discussion, therefore, concentrated on how we could make our intentions clearer, our limitations explicit and make it impossible for anyone to misinterpret the intent of the language.
During this process we worked very hard to listen. We learned that certain words were flash points for some, while other words brought comfort to others. So we chose our words carefully, all the while maintaining the integrity of the amendment language.
These discussions involved a lot of interests and I truly, truly thank everyone who participated. They knew what we were trying to do is important and they wanted to help us get it right.
But the most important participants in the discussion were you, the Commission members, who invested your time and brought your considerable expertise to the table; my utmost thanks and appreciation for your diligence and for your patience.
The process has resulted in language that is far better in accomplishing our unchanged objectives and it has helped us forge partnerships with many interests whose support will be essential as the Bay Area moves ahead to meet the goals of ensuring that our region's natural resources and human communities will be resilient to climate change, that we will be making our region more prosperous in the future and that we can achieve the highest quality of life for all the people who live and work in the Bay Area.
That's what we're trying to do and Joe LaClair will now tell you what you can do today to help achieve those goals. Thank you.
Chief Planner LaClair commented: I would like to present staff's recommendation on Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08 Concerning Climate Change.
But before I do that I would like to acknowledge the contributions of those whose efforts were essential in getting this recommendation to you. Many of the members of the BCDC staff have contributed to the formulation of this amendment over the last two and a half years but there are a few who deserve specific mention.
Over the past year and a half, Jessica Davenport assisted with project management and provided sage advice. Grace Gomez, your Executive Secretary, and Reggie Abad, the Office Technician who works with Gracie, made sure that the many letters you received were properly transmitted and organized to facilitate the voluminous response to comments and made sure that documents were mailed on time. Tim Eichenberg and his cadre of legal interns made sure that we fully responded to all public and Commissioner comments and helped rewrite the environmental assessment. I am very proud and grateful to work with such a dedicated team.
The staff recommendation, response to comments and Commission Resolution No. 11-08 and the revised background report, Living With a Rising Bay, were posted on BCDC's website and mailed to you on September 23rd. You have also received several letters commenting on staff's proposed recommendation.
The staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution No. 11-08 that will amend the Bay Plan by adding a new Climate Change findings and policies section at the beginning of Part IV, Developing the Bay and the Shoreline, and amend the Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats, Safety of Fills, Protection of the Shoreline and Public Access findings and policies sections as outlined in the staff recommendation.
The staff also recommends that the Commission determine that the amendments will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment, as outlined in the environmental assessment and staff's response to comments.
The McAteer-Petris Act provides that the amendments to the Bay Plan, other than minor map changes, must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Commission or 18 affirmative votes.
As you know, you held a public hearing on this matter on September 1st and closed the public hearing, so no additional public comments can be accepted today.
I would like to echo Travis' comments of appreciation for the assistance we received from stakeholders, and in particular from the Commission. It was a pleasure working with you on this important policy effort.
That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have.
Chair Randolph asked Commissioner Gibbs if he would like to move this item.
Commissioner Gibbs commented: I think we followed a Bay Area process to develop a Bay Area approach to a global problem. After the vote I hope we can have some more remarks to acknowledge all the people that participated in that.
But it's with a lot of pleasure after a lot of time that I move the staff recommendation.
Chair Randolph announced that a motion was made and a second by Commissioner Gioia was accepted. He asked for any Commissioner discussion.
Commissioner McGrath stated: I would like to single out, I think, two for praise. One is Will Travis.
When the wheels came off the bus, you can always moan about the flat tires or you can get out the jack and fix it. And that's the responsible and adult thing to do and it was done.
And the other group I would like to thank is the people who explained to us very clearly what it was that concerned them. We listened but you spoke well. And it was in doing that I endorse Travis' remark and I thank both of you.
Chair Randolph asked for any further comment or discussion and Commissioner Groom spoke.
Commissioner Groom commented: I represent San Mateo County, which has 20 cities, 17 of them with bayfront. Many of those cities that have bayfront are in the FEMA flood zone, oddly enough, and yet there was much consternation in our county.
You, Mr. Travis, made sure that you came to a number of our countywide meetings, were very, very patient, gave very great explanations, and answered all questions.
We had a number of meetings without you present where we debated this and we discussed it and we tried to -- our legal counsel in San Mateo County tried very hard to explain to most of our cities that this was not in any way a step over the boundaries of legal jurisdiction; so I am very grateful to our legal counsel.
And I am very grateful to Joe LaClair who spent a lot of time with me so that I could more ably answer questions of our representatives in San Mateo County.
And so I am very proud today to be able to cast a yes vote.
Commissioner Gioia commented: And as someone who also served on sort of our subcommittee that listened to both many in the environmental community and in the business community, I'm glad we are where we are today. Because I think there were points along the way which some of us believed that the process was not going to get finalized and we wouldn't be here today.
I do think that this is historic because -- and David Lewis made reference to sort of the founding of this organization. It is really important to bring the region together on issues like this because the only way this is going to get solved is with regional leadership. And I think there will continue to be some tension between individual cities and counties and regional agencies as we solve what are these very, very tough challenges.
And I am proud of the fact that we have been able to at least come together as a region and move in that direction. And while everyone isn't necessarily pleased with the final document, I think as Will Travis says, it does move us a ways down the track on this issue.
And the next major step is really -- and Tom is Chair of the Joint Policy Committee right now in the Bay Area – is the JPC working on facilitating or bringing together the development of a regional plan involving local government and really implementing this to the next step.
Commissioner Lundstrom commented: I think over the process this brings a much strengthened plan in the long run because of the tremendous outreach that BCDC staff did, not only to local government but also, sitting on a flood control district, there was an outreach to the flood control engineer association for the area. And it's all that outreach that makes this a living document to go forward.
So while it might have been painful and time-consuming, it's much more meaningful. Because when we think of the Bay Area, we're six million people and we've got to have that outreach and we've got to partner together. So I think it's historic and I compliment the committee that went out and made this all come together.
Commissioner Nelson commented: Just one quick comment. From one perspective, there was a lot of confusion about what BCDC was proposing, as Travis suggested in his opening comments.
But a part of that is actually encouraging. What we heard from a lot of local governments in particular is the need for a regional strategy. The need for us to find ways, not just for BCDC but for other institutions as well to help local governments really strapped for resources right now tackle this challenge.
And I think one of the encouraging things about the long debate over these policies over the course of the last several years is that there is dramatically increased awareness and engagement by local jurisdictions.
And as the Bay Area Council representative said earlier, we have just started the hard work. We have not raised a levee, protected a wetlands, written a regional plan or worked with cities on local plans yet through this process, we're just beginning that.
But I think it is very encouraging both that so many people did step up and engage in a very thoughtful, serious way. And even some of the folks who were really, frankly, confused by our proposals, including a lot of local governments and local landowners, are much more engaged and very clearly, strongly supportive of the sort of regional effort that we're trying to launch with this policy and that's encouraging.
Commissioner Carrillo commented: I felt encouraged with the process that took place. I felt that it was fair, it was balanced. A lot of that is attributed to you as a Chair and to Will Travis in really moving this forward.
And oftentimes policies and amendments to these types of initiatives really spur innovation and different ways of thinking of things. So I'm actually very encouraged to see what this policy change that we're seeing here at BCDC will create moving forward in the future when it comes to innovation and thinking differently around climate change. So I am looking forward to strongly supporting this motion.
Chair Randolph commented: A number of people in this room were actually talking at me as I was driving. What we are doing today actually goes beyond just the Bay Area or even the state of California. I think it has national significance and people around the country are looking at what we're doing here. So I'm proud of BCDC that we have stepped into this void and have shown leadership and are producing results from that leadership.
I think when we go back two years or just about a year ago -- we've lapped ourselves -- when the September 3rd edition of the language came out. I think a lot of us would have liked to have voted on this earlier, but it was important that we took the time to stop and listen to what others in the community were saying, and it was a very healthy process.
Most of that input, not all but the vast majority of that input, raised real issues, and the product we have now reflects the dialogue we have had over the last year about that.
And as Trav said, it may not reflect exactly what any one of those or what any one major interest group would have liked had they written it themselves, but it does reflect a process that has been very open and very transparent; in which everybody has been willing to compromise in order to reach a common goal.
And I think because of that it's been very educational for everybody. This is very, very new territory and we stepped into it not knowing quite what the next step would look like, what the land would look like. And I think everybody who has been involved has learned a great deal, which is a good thing.
And I think what we have now is a plan that is as close to consensus as we could possibly expect, given the novelty of the issues we're dealing with. It sets the direction, it sets a framework. But there's still a lot of heavy lifting ahead as the region begins to consider what's going to be a broader and more specific climate adaptation plan. And hopefully those discussions will go forward in the same spirit of flexibility and openness that we have had here in BCDC over the last year.
So I want to thank every member of the Commission for your pragmatism and your openness and your flexibility and your willingness to listen. And in particular I want to thank Commissioners Geoff Gibbs, Barry Nelson, Jim McGrath, John Gioia and Tom Bates.
And I'm probably leaving somebody out here, I apologize. But that's the group that participated in hours and hours and hours of negotiations and detailed discussions over fine-tuning key words of the text. So we wouldn't be here the way we are today with the language we have without their time and attention and their dedication.
I also want to thank the staff. In addition to those who Joe mentioned I want to thank Trav, Joe LaClair, Steve Goldbeck. It would be interesting to count how many letters you have responded to individually, how many public meetings you've spoken at, all of which was critical to contributing to the degree of consensus that we have today.
And lastly I want to thank the many, many cities and the individuals and the organizations that wrote us those countless letters and then spoke at some of those very long Commission meetings over the last two years to help us get this right.
So with that if there are no further comments maybe, Mamie, if you could call the roll. Oh, Trav, please.
Executive Director Travis added: It was Lyndon Johnson who said, "When you don't have the votes, talk, and when you have the votes, vote." Mr. Chairman, it's time to vote.
A roll call vote was taken with the following results:
VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 24-0-0 with Commissioners Addiego, Apodaca, Bates, Carrillo, Gilmore, Chiu, Kato, Gibbs, Gioia, Goldzband, Groom, Lundstrom, McGrath, Moy, Nelson, Sartipi, Sears, Vasquez, Carruthers, Vierra, Caldwell, Ziegler,Vice Chair Halsted and Chair Randolph voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions.
Commissioner Gibbs added: I didn't want to jinx the vote but since we're done, and thank you for that 24-to-nothing vote, a couple of acknowledgements are in order.
Certainly Executive Director Travis and Chief Deputy Director Goldbeck for their leadership in shepherding this through.
We can't say enough about Joe LaClair and Jessica Davenport, who turned these drafts around with so many comments, so accurately, sometimes in the space of just a few days, under the printing deadlines and filing deadlines that we have. So that was really, really a remarkable effort and we need to note it.
I think Vice Chair Halsted was on the subcommittee that we had.
And so we need to thank all the members of that subcommittee. But also to the whole Commission for trusting us to carry out your mission during these long two years.
And then finally, the legal staff we can't forget. Tim Eichenberg and his team and Alice Reynolds; I wish she were here today. They parsed through all these words and gave us advice that was right on point the entire time.
And finally, the outside groups who participated in this from the beginning. They probably are responsible for some of the timeline but also are responsible for making it better.
And three of the principal ones spoke today, Paul Campos, David Lewis and John Coleman. That advice was well taken; that advice has resulted in a better document.
And so I just wanted to acknowledge, for the record, after all this time and with this landmark unanimous vote, all the elements that went into this. So thank you, everybody, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for getting us here.
Vice Chair Halsted commented: And I am very proud to be associated with a Chair and a Commission and a staff and the public that has taken the wise step of passing this amendment to our Bay Plan. I think it is a great step for the future of the Bay Area, both economically and environmentally. So I am proud that we have taken this step and we look forward to more in the future.
Chair Randolph added: I am especially chagrined at having not mentioned Vice Chair Halsted because she delayed a trip to Spain to be voting with us today. And I think she goes to the airport as soon as we're done; she has her mantilla on already.
Executive Director Travis added: Mr. Chairman, I will point out that Commissioner Lundstrom flew across half of the country to get here and Commissioner Carrillo postponed a trip to Washington DC to be here. Thank you.
10. Consideration of Strategic Plan Status Report. Executive Director Travis informed the Commissioners that a report had been sent with no changes needed. The next strategic workshop has been tentatively scheduled for the 29th of March 2012.
11. New Business. No new business was discussed.
12. Old Business. No old business was discussed.
13. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Goldzband, seconded by Commissioner Vasquez the meeting adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of November 3, 2011.
R. SEAN RANDOLPH, Chair