BCDC Climate Change Amendments To The Bay Plan

Richmond Development Company, LLC
Agenda Item #11
September 27,2010
Joe LaClair
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
50 California Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08

Revisions to San Francisco Bay Plan to Address Climate Change
Dear Mr. LaClair:
My partners and I own about 24 acres on Richmond's north shoreline. That land is
designated and zoned for light industrial, research and development and flexible uses, and
represents a tremendousoppoltunity for future development that would bring jobs and tax
revenues to Richmond, as. well. as further development of the Bay Trail and access to
nearby Regional Parks. Of course, our land is color-coded pink on the Bay Area
Innundation (sic) and Political Map that accompanies the proposed Bay Plan
Amendment, meaning possibly that all such hopes of development would be crushed.
We first learned about these proposed revisions to the San Francisco Bay Plan only about
one week ago. Although we have no reason to doubt that all proper legal notices of-prior
public meetings were given, the BCDC should have taken extraordinary measures to
notify potentially impacted property owners' and other stakeholders about these dramatic
proposals. I note, for example, that the Commission staff held three workshops in
various locations around the Bay Area, but that notice of those workshops was given only
to public agencies, not to nearby propelty owners.
We cannot review the proposals, perform necessary research and prepare to address the
issues raised in the proposed Amendment in only a couple of weeks. We request,
therefore, that the Commission postpone any action on the proposed Amendment until
after yet another public hearing, at least 90 days in the future, at which we and other .
affected property owners may present our issues thoroughly and cogently.
Very truly yours,
~~
Joshua Genser, Manager
125 Park Place, Sf/ite 210, Poilll Ricbmolld, Califomia 94801 tel (510) 237-6916 fax: (510) 236-9851
l£:J VV'-{ VVL,
October 4. 201 0
~~~~n\!l~\l))
Will Travis. Executive Dil'ecror
R. Sean Randolph. Chairman OCT - 4 2010
San Francisco Bay Conserva~ion and Development Commission
50 California Street. Suite 2600 SAN FRANClSCu 13M CONSBRVATION
San Francisco, CA 94111 & DEVELOPMENT COMhllSSION
Re: Bay Plan Climate Change Amendments
Dear Executive Director. Chairman and Commissioners:
Most recenlly. it has come to 01.11' attention that on October 7.2010. the staff of the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("BeDC") will be proposing amendments to the
BCDC Bay Plan that CII'e intended to addro~s the potential of a 55-inch ~ea. level raise that is
predicted to rake place by the end 'ofthis century.
It is Our understanding that the proposed amendments affect 213.000 acres which are well outsic1~.
the BCDC's existing geographic and policy jurisdiction under the McAteer-Petris Act.
Additionally, we have been told that the proposed amendments are being made witho~lt
environmental review under '[he California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
Although the BCDC began drafting these amendments in MarcIl 2009, staff has received input
!'i'om l~wer th.tJ1 a dozon individLlals and ol'ganizaJio11s, largely Bay-focused environmental groups
and a few business associations that regularly monitor the BCDC. These far reaching amendments
.. _ to. the. Bay Plan h.ave received vinually no press coverage, and elected officials andcQrnmunity
leaders in areas that will be affected by the new regulations have little or no knowledge that these
amendments are being considered_
The San Ma.teo Coumy Building and Construction Trades Council believes it is important that
stakeholders and all levels of gOVCfl1InCI1t collectively jioed to address this issue, and that because
of the potential dramatic negative impact that the proposed amendments will have on local
governments, developers and land O\yners around The bay. an economic and environmental impact
review ShOl,Jld be cond~lcted.
With this lettel" we are respectfully requesting thai the BCOC defer the adoption of the proposed
amendments on Octobel' 7, ;20] 0, that a full discussion be initiated involving all stakeholders, and
all SIR &U1d an economic impact aJ1alysis be COi1d~lcted. Thank you fOl' youI' C011sideration of this
request.
C:J'L~
William A, Nack
Executive Officer
TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
RICH HILLIS, PROJECT DIRECTOR GAVIN NEWSOM, MAYOR
~~(C;~r\#rE{lj
Mr. Sean Randolph SEP 2 7 2010 . L!::J
Chair
SAN FRANCl~CO 81\Y CONSERVATION
Bay Conservation and Development Commission'
& DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
September 22, 2010
RE: Staff Report and Revised Preliminary Recommendations for Proposed Bay Plan
Amendment 1-08 Concel:ning Climate Change (For Commission consideration on
October 7,2010)
Dear Chairman Randolph:
On behalf of the Treasure Island Development Authority and the Mayor's Office of Economic and
Workforce Development, City and County of San Francisco, I want to thank you and the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) staff for sharing the Staff Report and Revise9 Preliminary
Recommendations for Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change with us.
We believe that the BCDC's work, and that of the other agencies who you so capably have collaborated
with on the issue of global warming and sea level rise, in recognizing and proactively establishing policies
to address sea level rise within the critical jurisdictional boundaries of BCDC is timely, well thought out
I
and important.
As you know, current estimates from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(WCC) are that global warITling is expected tO result in sea level rise in San Francisco Bay of 16 inches by
I
mid-century and possibly as much as 55 inches by the-end·of the century, The IPCCestimates are based ,on
the best scientific data available as to potential outcomes associated with global warming impacts on sea
level rise over the next 50 and 100 years. These estimates will continue to be revised to reflect additional
data as it becomes available, including actual measurements of sea level rise. Notwithstanding the
uncertainties associated with estimating potential future conditions, BCDC's l~adership in addressing
global warming and its impact on sea level rise bY' presenting findings and policies in the Revised
Preliminary Recommendations for Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change
allows for Bay Area stakeholders to plan for adaptive management measures to address climate change.
The Staff RepOlt and Revised Preliminary Recommendations carefully consider the interests of the
multiple stakeholders in this process, and is supportable, feasible and appropriate. We would like to offer
several comments for your consideration. Proposed additions in language are shown as underlined, while
proposed language deletions are shown as struck through.
Comment No.1· Climate Change Finding c. (pages 8-9)
"Therefore, to minimize flood risk, it is prudent to rely on scientifically based higher projections when
establishing ffi-.the a reasonable range of possible future sea level rise."
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 448, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

(415) 554·6123 VOICE (415) 554·6018 FAX
Rationale: This proposed change reflects BCDC staffs approach that global warming and sea level
rise policies should be directe,d by~.the best scientific data available, as reflected in the other portions
of Finding c.' ' --j ;,;:~ \ '
Comment No.2- ;Qlima~e Cl~ange Finding o. (page 12)
"Approfch~,~ .fq~ ~nsuring public safety in developed vulnerable shoreline areas require adaptive ' ,
management:strategies that i'nclude:i(l) protecting existing development; (2) accommodating flooding by
building structures or infrastructure systems that are resilient and adaptable over time; (3) discouraging
permanent new development when adaptive management strategies cannot protect public safety in
vulnerable shoreline areas; (4) allowing eRly interim and permanent new uses that can be adapted to protect
public safety in vulnerable shoreline areas, or that can be removed or phased out if adaptive management
strategies are not available as inundation threats increase; and (5) removing existing development that does
not ensure public safety in vulnerable shoreline areas through adaptive management strategies."
Rationale: These proposed changes reflect BCDC staff's recognition of the myriad number of
approaches that the Commission should consider to ensure public safety in developed vulnerable
shoreline areas, including implementation of adaptive management strategies ranging from the
protection of existing development to discouraging permanent new development that cannot protect
public safety in vulnerable shoreline areas through implementable adaptive management strategies.
Comment No. 3 - Climate Change Finding r. (page 13)
"... and a permanent financial strategy can be developed to guarantee that the general·public will notbe "
burdened with the cost of protecting the project from fffiJ' sea level rise or storm damage caused by sea
level rise in the future."
(NOTE: Also recommend same chaIlge under Policy 6.d. (page 18) regarding "redevelopment that will
remediate existing environmental degradation or contamination, particularly on closed military bases".)
Rationale: This chailge ties the effects of sea level ,?n storm damage tCJ.a project, and not solely the
storm damage to a project that may be caused absent the effect of sea level rise. Storm damage
mitigation measures are covel'ed elsewhere in BCDC policies and by local government and agency
ordinances. '
Comment No.4 - Climate Challge··Policy 1 (page 15)
"When plamling shoreline areas or designing larger shoreline projects, a risk assessment should be
prepared, based on the estimated 100-year flood elevations that take future sea level rise into account. A
reasonable range of sea level rise projections for mid-century and end of century, including at least one
high estimate, tftat...4.s based on the best sCience based projections currently a:yailable scientific data
available, should be used in the risk assessment. I
(NOTE: Considering revising references to "mid-century and end of century" to actual time horizons
associated with life of project; i.e. 50 years and 100 years from then current date at time of risk assessment.
Rationale: This proposed change reflects BCDC staffs approach that global warming and sea level
rise policies should be directed by the best scientific data available, as reflected in Finding c.

(415) 554-6969 VOICE (415) 554-6018 FAX
Comment No.5· Climate Change.·Policy 2 (page 15)
"To protect public safety and ecosystem services within areas vulnerable to future shoreline flooding, all
projects--other than minor repairs of existing facilities, small projects that do not increase risks to public
safety, interim projects~ ttf3:El infill projects within existing urbanizedareas~ and Priority Development Areas
as designated by the Association of Bay Area Governments FOCUS study that likely will be protected
whether or not the infill takes place--should be designed to be resilient to a mid-century or a minimum of
50 year sea level rise projection, whichever is longer, based upon a risk assessment conducted for the
project... .. "
Rationale: This comment acknowledges and respects the regional planning processes that have
preceded this Proposed Bay Plan Amendment (and their regional importance) and ensures that designs
should be implemented for either the mid-century point or 50 years, whichever is longer.
Comment No.6· Climate Change•.Policy 5 (page 16)
"The Commission, in collaboration with the Joint Policy Committee, other regional, state and federal
agencies, local governments, and the general public, should formulate a regional sea level rise adaption
strategy for protecting critical developed shoreline areas, Priority Development Areas as designated by the
ABAG FOCUS study, and natural ecosystems, enhancing the resilience of Bay and· shoreline systems and
increasing their adaptive capacity."
Rationale: See Above.
Comment No.7· Climate Change••Policy Sa. (page 16)
"advance regional public safety and prosperity by protecting most existing shoreline development and
Priority Development Areas as designated by the ABAG FOCUS study, especially development that
1
J
provides regionally significant benefits... "
Rationale: See Above
Comment No.8· Shoreline Protection··Policy 1. (page 24)
"New shoreline protection projects and the maintenance or recOllstruction of exi~ting projects should be
authorized if: (a) the project is necessary to protect existing shoreline development and Priority.
Development Areas as designated by the ABAG FOCUS study from flooding or erosion.... "
Rationale: See Above.
Thank you again for BCDC's signincant efforts on this important issue and for providing us with an
oppoltunity to provide comment for the Commission's consideration..
Very truly yours,
-~---
~
Michael
Deputy Director, Treasure Island Redevelopment Project

(415) 554·6969 VOICE (415) 554-6018 FAX
San Francisco International Airport
P.O. Box 8097
5an Francisco, CA 94128

Tel 650.821.5000
September 30, 2010
Fax 650.821.5005
www.flysfo.com
Mr. Will Travis
Executive Director
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Conunission
Subject: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change

AIRPORT
Dear Will:
COMMISSION
CITY AND COUNTY

SFO ~1as reviewed the staff report for the proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning
OF SAN FRANCISCO
Climate Change. We appreciate the opportunity to conm1ent on the Bay Plan Amendment
GAVIN NEWSOM with respect to climate change and sea level rise in the Bay.
MAYOR
After reviewing the proposed Bay Plan amendment, SFO seeks clarification on some of the
LARRY MAZZOLA
proposed policies and their application to SFO. S~veral of the proposed policies introduce
PRESIDENT
restrictions and additional requirements related to the permitting process, design, and
LINDA S. CRAYTON permissibility of future development in certain areas. SFO has already taken steps toward
VICE PRESIDENT protecting its shoreline and assessing risks on its property, and will continue to do so as new
information is evaluated. However, some of the policies imposing limitations on future
CARYL ITO
development may adversely affect SFO's ability to provide facilities to meet forecasted travel
ELEANOR JOHNS
demands at the Airport.
RICHARD J. GUGGENHIME
Airports, according to the Bay Plan, are considered a "priority use" of Bay shoreline, and are
JOHN L. MARTIN recognized as regionally significant transportation infrastructure. Furthenl1ore, proposed
AIRPORT DIRECTOR climate change policy 5 emphasizes that the goal of a regional sea level rise adaptation
strategy would be to advance regional public safety and prosperity by protecting existing
regionally beneficial shoreline developments such as ail1JOrts and ports. In order for SFO to
remain viable, the regional strategy must consider the existing conditions and allowfor future
construction projecb at the Airport. As stated in our previous comment letters, SFO is well
aware of potential flooding impacts on Airpoli operations and our existing shoreline
protection system at the Airport cUlTently provides a safeguard from rising tides, and will
continue to protect the airfield and existing facilities from potential flooding for the next 50
years. At the same time, SFO will continue to need all of its limited land resources to
acconm10date projected aviation growth. Specific policies accounting for existing shoreline
protection and relating to future SFO development may be issues to consider during the
development of the regional strategy; however, as currently drafted, it is unclear how some of
the Bay Plan policies would be applied towards construction projects at the Ailport prior to the
adoption of such a regional approach.
For example, climate change policy 3 provides that low-lying areas with diverse habitat values
or suitable for natural resource enhancement should be preserved, enhanced, or permanently
protected. It is unclear how this policy would be applied towards new construction projects at
SFO, identified as an existing priority use in the Bay Plan. As the Airport's land resources are
Will Travis, Executive Director
September 30, 2010
Page 2 of2
limited, any policy that would permanently preclude future development is a matter of
concem.
In addition, safety of fills policy 4 prescribes design parameters for new projects built on fill
or near the shoreline, such as applying shoreline setbacks and elevated bottom floor levels to
account for sea level rise. Compliance with this policy would be infeasible for the Airport
because ofland constraints and the necessity to design projects, such as hangars, to meet
aviation needs. The setting and function of the Airport require particular consideration in the
amended Bay Plan policies. Airport staff seeks clarification with regard to these policies'
applicability to the Airpoli.
Per our conversation last week, I will ask Nixon Lam of my staff to contact Joe LaClair to
discuss further. SFO looks forward to continuing to work with BCDC staff and other
stakeholders to address the long teml challenges of climate change and sea level rise.
Very truly yours,
{l\OL·M·'. .
Jo 111 '. artm
Airpott Director
cc: Joe LaClair, BCDC

Jackson Wong, SFO
.. Julian Potter, SFO
Jim Chiu, SFO
John Bergener, SFO
Nixon Lam, SFO
Melba Yee, SFO
1_..
TMG PARTNERS 100 BUSH STREET. 26TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104 T 415.772.5900
F 415.772.5911 WWW.TMGPARTNERS.COM
VlAEMAIL
October 1,2010
Joe LaClair
Chief P1almer SAN FRANC1:>CO DAY CONSERVATION
San Francisco Bay Con:servation and Development Commission & DEVELOPMENT C01Y1MISSlON
50 Califomia Street, Ste 2600
R.E: Proposed BeDe Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change; October 7 Hearing
TMG Parh1ers is writing to oppose amendments to the Bay Plan being considered by BCDC at their
October 7 meetings which would dramatically expand the jurisdiction of BCDC without any coordination
with landowners, affected cities, or regional planning agencies.
We believe that these amendments are overly broad and create h'emendous uncertainty and litigation risk
to existing developed and undeveloped properties on the shore of the San Francisco Bay and beyond. By
BCDC's own accounting, $62 billion dollars in existing development, 270,000 people, and 213,000 acres
ofland are
, , .
impacted
'.
".'
by, the Amendments.
.~ ,\ .-". '-
\Vhile a coordinated strategy for planning the edge of the Bay is warranted, we and others who actively
develop urban infilllocations in the Bay Area believe that the proposed amendments will damage the
reuse of key urban infillldcations in the Bay Area that are may be targeted for redevelopment under
recently adopted plans, including the ABAG Focus program.. Because the proposed amendments would
create direct conflicts with other adopted regional planning documents, including those designed to
reduce global wam1ing gas emissions, BCDC should defer taking action on this proposed amendment
until a comprehensive, collabmative, and transparent process can be.undertaken., ••.., ••. ;k.. '.•.•.
ur consideration,
ic 1ael Covarrubias
President and CEO
TMG Paliners
cc: R. Sean Randolph, Bay Area Council, Chair, BCDC

Anne Halsted, Vice Chair, BCDC
John Gioia, Contra Costa County, Commissioner, BCDC
-~
Sophie Maxwell, Supervisor, City of San Francisco, Connnissioner, BCDC
Jim Wonderman, Bay Area Council
Will Travis, Executive Director, BCDC
<) 100% Post Consumer Waste

ORACLE· )()() Omc!t' Parkw,1\"
l\C'dWOOc1 Shores 650.506.7200
Califurnia tJ4tl65 omdc:.com
September 30, 2010
ij,D ~ CC Ls~ ~-
D'""\Y e ffj'
I""'..."'
- LI
OCT - 4 201D )
Will Travis
Executive Director SAN fRANCISCO BAY
& DEVELOPMENT CONSERVAllON
R. Sean Randolph COMMIsSION
Chairman
Dear Director Travis and Chairman Randolph:
As a major Bay Area employer in our technology industry, Oracle has an acute interest
in regional land-use planning that promotes robust residential infill development in and
near our major employment centers. We see the closing of the housing-to-jobs gap on
the peninsula and around the region as critical to the future of the Bay Area's innovation
economy, as well as to reversing the old development patterns that have exacerbated
global warming and climate change.
As I am sure you are aware, given the location of our headquarters at Redwood Shores,
we view the predictions of global-warming-induced sea level rise as a major concern-
but one We believe our company, local government, and Bay Area leadership are more
than capable of preparing for and responding to collectively in ways that protect and
foster our natural and human environments.
··Itis in that vein that I wish to cOmmend your agency for the proactive attention you are"'
giving to the issue of sea level rise and to preparing our region to adapt to its mighty
challenges.
However, I must also express serious concerns over the approach that I have come to
learn BCOC is taking in drafting land-use policies for areas that are vulnerable to the
rising of the seas. It came to our attention only through private channels that the agency
had recently published an extensive BCOC Bay Plan amendment on climate change;
that the amendment is intended control, guide or influence land-use decisions over
areas susceptible to sea level rise; and that those amendments are to be taken up at a
public hearing on October 7 and possibly adopted by commission vote in November.
Our first concern is that we could be in the dark about something that so directly impacts
the interests of our company and industry.
Our second concern relates to the substance of the document-that its orientation,
direction and priorities might, at a minimum, create unnecessary hurdles to our ability in
Redwood Shores, in San Mateo County, along the peninsula and around the region to
build the homes we need to house tomorrow's workforce, and to protect our
ORACLE" SOO Oracle Parkway phone 650.S06.7000
Redwood Shores 6511. 506.7 lOO
Calilornia 94065 oracie-.com
neighborhoods, commercial areas and industry from inundation and flooding under some
of the sea-level-rise scenarios that your agency says we should be preparing for today.
I am confident that you and your staff feel they have done their level best to inform the
public. But from this stakeholder's perspective, the process needs a hard restart. We
advise and request that you postpone further deliberations intended to set the stages for
adoption of the Bay Plan amendment before you.
We ask that you instead reach out around the region and begin a dialogue that is
reflective of both the threat and opportunity presented by climate change, and looks to
leverage the collected talent, capability, passions, wherewithal and genius of the San
Francisco Bay Area.
If you would like to discuss this matter furthE;lr, please don't hesitate to call at 650-506-
7000.
Sincerely,
1?~&-Tc-
Randall W. Smith
VP Real Estate & Facilities
CITY COUNCIL 2010
IvlARK N. ADDillGO, MAYOR

KEVIN MULLIN, VICE MAYOR
RIG-lARD A. GARBARINO, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDRO GONZALEZ, COUNCILMEJI,ffiER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEl\ffiER
BARRY M, NAGEL, CITY MANAGER
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

September 30, 2010
Re: Comments on Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment
Dear Commission Members:
The City of South San Francisco ("City") appreciates this opportunity to provide
comments to the San Francisco BaY Conservation Development Commission
("BCDC") regarding proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 concerning climate
change. . .
The Gitysubmits these'general comments - on

behalf of the City's citizens in the
hopes.t~afBCDC will reconsider whether the proposed.amendment is necessary or,
at the very least, notadopt any Bay Planameridments until the proposed regulations
and their implications are fUlly studied and presented to all stakeholders: "
The City shares BCDC's concerns regarding the potentially drastic effects of climate
change on the San Francisco Bay Area, . Qnd agrees that a proactive.approach is
necessary. This approach, however, is best implemented at a local level. South San
Francisco, like other local governments, already evaluates climate change impacts
as part of its standard environmental review process for projects proposed in the
City. Further, the State of California has recognized through its legislative actions,
such as AB 32 and SB 375, and the Air Resources Board has stated in its climate
change scoping plan, that local governments are "essential partners" to achieving
the State's climate change goals.
To this end, the City of South San Francisco has been a leader in San Mateo County
with regard to climate change initiatives. The City recently established a
Sustainability Division within its Economic and Community Development
Department, which will oversee the City's Greenhouse Gas Inventory Project and
prepara~ion . of a Climate Action' Plan. The City has also' been at the forefront. of
several environmental movements, including requiring -developers to implement
aggressive transportation demand-management plahS, the use of alternative energy
sources for City projects, widespread use of recycled water, prohibiting the use of
polystyrene by food vendors, and many more.
City Hall: 400 Grand Avenue· South San Francisco, CA 94080· P.O.Box 711 • South San Francisco, CA 94083
+----------------ebone:~65n.827_..8500--!-£ax:--650.829~6609 _
San Francisco BCDC Commissioners
Re: Comment on Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment
October 1, 2010
Page 2
Given the City's efforts to combat climate change and the fact that the City already
evaluates climate change impacts of its projects, at the present time, an additional
layer of regulation is not necessary.
South San Francisco is also concerned that the proposed Bay Plan Amendment has
not been sufficiently vetted among the many cities, towns, and counties throughout
the Bay Area that will be affected by the Amendment. The proposed Bay Plan
Amendments propose significant policy changes that would impact local
governments, yet the Bay Plan Amendment process does not appear to have fully
engaged local governments. Public hearings and workshops on the Amendment
were held in 2008 and 2009, though the staff report does not identify any outreach to
local governments or other stakeholders. Changes of this magnitude should directly
involve all stakeholders, including local agencies that currently exercise regulatory
control over the potentially affected areas.
Through this letter, the City requests that the BCDC not take any action on the
proposed Bay Plan Amendment at their October 7, 2010, meeting. The City further
requests that no action be taken on the proposed Amendment until BCDC has
presented the proposed policy changes to the local agencies and until the agencies
and the public have had an opportunity to fully review and submit formal comments
of the final proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments from the City of South San
Francisco.
Sincerely,
~.(~
Barry Nagel, City Manager,
City of South San Francisco
cc: . Members of the City Council of South San Francisco

Marty Van Duyn, Assistant City Manager
Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
oct, 4. 2010 12:46PM No. LYJJ ~,1
; :
BAYIBIO CA 94080
i. OO Oyslerphone:
Point Boulevard Sulle 221, SouthSan FrancisDO,
650·871·7101 I fax: 650·87P555 I ....NlW.baybio.org
october 4, 2010
~[Ecef§:a~~[QJ
Joe LaClair
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission OCT - 4 2010
SO C~lifornja Street, Ste 2600 s.tiN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
San Francisco, CA 94111 & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Re: proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Changej October 7 HearIng
Dear Mr. LaClair:
BayBio is Northern California/s life sciences association. We represent over 400 members
engaged in and supportive of research, development, ahd commercialization of medical ~nd
biotechnologies} diagnostics, and research tools for human} agricultural cll1d Industrial
applications. Northern California is the oldest/largest and most productive life sciences cluster
in the world. BayBio is opposed to the proposed amendmehts in the Bay Plan.
The San Francisco Bay is a national treasure and Without preservation we would not have the
waterways that allow us to enjoy this benefit. However, protecting the Bay with persistent
oversight should consider regulations that would prevent the movement of goods ahd people,
and should not prohibit positive development in the surroundIng communities.
;
1
J
i
Its important that BCDC's staff coordinate with local government in the Bay Plan to ensure that
development is done modestly <and efficIently. The proposed amendments stretch far beyond
I
J BCDC's jurIsdiction in several areas.
• According the proposal/ $62 billion in existing development 270,000 people, and
213,000 acres ~re implicated (Sept. 3, 2010, Staff Report, pg. 2). Much of this area is
well outside the Commission/s existing geographic and policy jurisdictlon (Proposed
Amendments, pg. 14) Finding v).
• The proposed amendments presume to Impose for an indefinite period of time broad
prohibitions and mandates well outside of the Commissiods actual geographic or policy
jurisdiction underthe McAteer-Petris Act (proposed Amendments, pp. 17-18, Policy 6).
• Proposed amendments on pg. 1'7/ Policy 6 suggest a moratorium oh any developments.
This could hinder access to mass transit and other forms of alternative transportation.
• The proposal would transfer powerfrom local governments to the BCDC and make it
more arduous for life science companies to operate in the Bay Area.
• The Proposed Amendments contain vague and undefined prohibitions and mandates
which potentially expose those with ~ctual jurisdiction in the overlay zone to litigation
over disputes of interpretation and consistency with local land use decision making. This
could have significant impacts on the economic development of our region.
Oct. 4. 2010 12:46PM No. :L~JJ ~. 1.
BAYIBIO
400 Oyster Point Boulevard Suite 221, SOUU1 San Francisco, CA 94080
phone: 650·871·7101 I fax: 650-871-7555 I www.baybio.org
A comprehensive, collaborative, and transparent process must be convened to address the
preservation of the San Francisco Bay, WIth those with expertise and authority III the lead.
BayBio urges you that the current proposal be rejected by the Commission with direction to
BCDC to ceaSe the Bay Plan Amendment process and engage collaboratively with all
stakeholders.
Sincerely,
H¢e:
Je m y " r
Chief Operating offfcer (COO)
BayBio
GAYLE B. UILKEMA WEST COUNTY OFFICE
CROCKETT COMMUNITY CENTER
850 POMONA AVENUE
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CROCKETI, CA 94525
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (510) 374-7101
FAX (510) 374-7102
SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT TWO
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LAMORINDA OFFICE

651 PINE STREET, ROOM 108A LAFAYETIE FIRE STATION
MARTI NEZ,· CA94553-1293 3338 MT. DIABLO BLVD.
(925) 335-1046 LAFAYETIE, CA 94549
FAX (925) 335-1076 (925) 646-6067
FAX (925) 646-6068
email:Gayle@bos.cccounty.us
website:www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/departldis2/
October 1,2010
Honorable R. Sean Randolph, Chair

RE: Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08
Dear Chair Randolph and Honorable BCDC Commissioners,
I am writing to communicate my strong reservations regarding the Commission's

proposed timetable for consideration and adoption of the Bay Plan Amendment
No. 1-08.
Many of the jurisdictions that I represent from the shoreline of unincorporated

Pinole to the City of Martinez - including Hercules, Rodeo, Crockett, Port Costa
and unincorporated Contra Costa County - have been focusing on meeting their
fiscal challenges. Little discussion has occurred at the local level regarding
climate change and its impact on each jurisdiction. To my knowledge, public
hearings have not been held nor have there been public education forums.
I urge the Commission to definitely take public testimony regarding the Bay Plan
Amendment No. 1-08 on October 7,2010: Additionally, the Commission should
consider an outreach program to each impacted community and schedule those
outreach efforts for November and December, 2010 as well as January, 2011.
After appropriate vetting of the plan, BCDC action on the final rendition could be
decided in the spring of 2011.
As a Supervisor, I have learned that local community support is critical to the long-
range implementation of any successful plan. My Supervisorial District represents
seven incorporated cities and eleven unincorporated communities. I am confident
that few, if any, residents are aware of the proposals in the Bay Plan Amendment,
yet there is great potential for impacts to many of the communities involved.
As you know, I have represented Contra Costa County on BCDe, JPC, ABAG and
BMQMD and have been very supportive of regional plans that have evolved
during my tenure. I remain supportive of BCDC and your efforts. The only
concern I have is the pace of BCDC's plans for adoption of Amendment No. 1-08.
I urge the Commission to focus on an outreach program and allow the people to
ALHAMBRA VALLEY • BRIONES • CANYON • CROCKETI • HERCULES • LAFAYETIE • MARTiNEZ • MORAGA • ORINDA
PINOLE • PORT COSTA • RODEO • ROSSMOOR • SARANAP • TARA HILLS • TORMEY • WALNUT CREEK (W
..:..::E=ST-,-O-=..:.F-=6-=..:80,-,-) _
learn about the impacts of this recommendation and how the communities
involved would be affected.
I can be reached at 925-335-1046 if there are questions regarding my

suggestions.
Thank you for considering this request to broaden and slow the proposed adoption
process. I wish BCDC continued success and appreciate your consideration on
behalf of the people of District 2 of Contra Costa County. .
Warm
cc: Eric Zell
I
1
ALHAMBRA VALLEY • BRIONES • CANYON • CROCKETT • HERCULES • LAFAYETTE • MARTINEZ • MORAGA • ORINDA
PINQLE • PORT COSTA • RODEO • ROSSMOOR • SARANAP • TARA HILLS • TORMEY • WALNUT CREEK (WEST OF 680)
,f ~ 1
Santa Clara & San Benito Counties

Building & Construction Trades Council
2102 Almaden Road Suite 101, San Jose, CA 95125-2190. Phone 408.265.7643· Fax 408.265.2080
Neil M. Struthers
Chief Executive Officer September 30, 2010
Josue Garcia
Deputy Executive Officer
Robert Baldini Will Travis, Executive Director . 15) [E ~ IE ~ 'o/J IE
President R. Sean Randolph, Chairman
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development commission nJ or'T -,.d, 2010
U:J
fn\O-
Asbestos Workers 16
Boilermakers 549 50 California Street, Suite 2600 v ,
Brick & Tile 3 San Francisco, CA 94111
Northern California 8.4N FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
Carpenters Regional Council
Carpenters 405
Carpet & Linoleum 12
Cement Masons 400 Dear Director, Chairman and Commissioners:
Drywall Lathers 9144
Electricians 332 It has come to my attention at this late date that your agency is entertaining a set of amendments to
Elevator Constructors 8 the BCDC Bay Plan that are intended as a response to sea level rise resulting from global warming.
Glaziers 1621
Iron Workers 377
Laborers 270 While I applaud your Vigilance and foresight on such an important issue, I must say I am disturbed
Laborers 67 that--given the stakes and potential impact of what is proposed--I would be just learning of this and
Millmen 262 that your agency would be proceeding without having first conducted the sort of public enga'gement
Millwrights 102 and discussion a matter of this gravity demands.
. .
Operating Engineers 3 ~.,
Painters District Council 16

Painters 507 It is my understanding that the Bay Plan amendment would set land-use policies, priorities and
Plasterers 300 guidelines for property under threat of the 55-inch sea level rise that is predicted to have taken
Plumbers & Steamfitters 393 place by the end of the century. According to your own estimates, we are talking about 213,000
Roofers & Waterproofers 95 acres, the vast majority of which falls outside of your current purview.
Sheet Metal Workers 104
Sign, Display 510
Sprinkler Fitters 483 It is also my understanding that the proposed amendments generally tend to recommend retreating
Teamsters 287 from some undeveloped shoreline areas, discouraging new construction in other areas and perhaps
abandoning some low-lying residential and commercial development. I understand there is an ' ,r-"
Affiliated with: absence of discussion about what levee and flood-control systems should be built to protect areas
State Building and . suitable for infill residential growth and to safeguard existing neighborhoods.
Construction Trades
Council of Califomia
Finally, I understand all of this is being considered at a public hearing on October i , with a
h
California Labor
Federation, AFL-CIO
potential adoption vote in November, just a few weeks after the document was posted on your Web
California Labor C.O.P.E.
site, with little or no media attention, and without the benefit of an EIR under the California
South Bay AFL-CIO Environmental Quality Act.
Labor Council
The interests of the Building & Construction Trades of the Bay Area clearly have yet to be explored
and discussed, and I respectfully request a continuance and for a discussion to be initiated that
involves all stakeholders
~'"
OPEIU 29
,,~
Il~ Neil Stru hers
CEO
E:!I
Ut;lONl,l,BEl
METROPOLITAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
October 5, 2010
S~ving the .U@'l!er~S[tV~ fR,).
Dr. R. Sean Randolph, Chair UU lSJ
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission OCT - 5 2010
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
Dear Chair Randolph & Members ofthe Commission: &. DEVELOPMENT COMMlSSION
RE: San Francisco Ba,' Plan on Climate Change
On behalf of the Board of Directors and our membership,please accept this letter as input to the
proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 concernill.g Climate Change scheduled for public hearing this
Thursday, October 7, 2010.
Do not curtail waterfront de,'e]opment
After revie,ving the proposed changes to both the "Findings" and "Policies" sections of the Plan, we
have a number of concerns regarding the proposed language and scope of the amendments. The
Chamber is especiallyconcemed about the following:
P. 9, Section e: "In planning and designing projects for the Bay shoreline, it is prudent
to ....preclude development that cannot be adapted to sea level rise."·
P. 12, Section 0: "Approaches for -ellsuriilg public safety in developed vulnerable shoreline'
areas include: ... (3) discouraging pennanent ne,\' development; (4) allo'wing only interim new
uses that can be removed or phased out as inundation threats increase; and (5) removing
existing development"
P. 13, Section r: "In some cases, the regional goals of encouraging iniill
development. ..redeveloping closed military bases and concentrating housing and job density
near transit. .. may conflict with the goal of minimizing flood risk....To minimize tlus conflict,
, infilll)r redevelopment in 10:W=lyingareas can be clustered on a portion of the property to' .'
reduce the area that must be protected ... "
P. 14, Section s: "Allo'wing development in these areas 'would preclude important habitat
enhancement opportunities."
We understand that the intent is to provide guidance to developers, the general public, local
governments and goveInJ.1lental agencies regarding the need. to plan for a rise in sea levels. However,
the overall tone of the language suggests a strong preference for curtailing, minimizing, or altering
proposed and existing 17vaterfront development.
Significant regional economic impacts

In the East Bay, thewaterfront has always been a tremendous econonuc asset that has provided jobs
and opportunity for millions of residents. The imminent redevelopment of the fonne.r Oaldand Almy
Base represents one of the region's best opportunities for building the economic and business
infrastructure of the future. The Oakland Maritime Port and Airport remain vital ecoDonuc assets
which need to be considered more fully before adopting new policies or anlending the Bay Plan,
475 14th Street, Oakland, CA 94612·1903 0 Telephone 510/874-4800 .. Fax: 510/839-8817 e www.oaklandchamber.com
However, without direct representation from the City of Oakland on the BCDC, we have significant
concems about the pace and scopeofthe proposed Bay Plan Amendments.
Recommendations
For these reasons, we urgently request BCDC consider additional time for public input to any
proposed changes to the Bay Plan. Additionally, we ask you to align the process with other
regional strategies, such as the Sustainable Communities Strategy being undertaken by the
Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC). We are confident BCDC recognizes the significant benefits of coordinating land-use,
transportation, and waterfront access plam1ing with other impOltant regional agencies.
The Chamber is a willing partner in your effOlts to plan for sea level rise while embracing new
investment that will allow the ,vaterfront to continue to playa vital role in the East Bay economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Copies to:
Oakland Mayor Ronald V. Dellurns

Oakland City Council President Jane Brunner
Port of Oakland Executive Director OInar Bt1njalnin
October 5, 2010
SAN FP"A.NClSCC) Bh.Y CONSERVATION
& DE\FriLOPMEl'rr COMMISSION
Mr. 'Sean Randolph, Chair and Members
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Chair of the Board
George Smith
Re: October 7 Hearing on Bay Plan Amendments
President
GBR Smith Group, LLC
Board Chair Elect Dear Chair Randolph and Members of the Commission:
Chair Elect
David Bowlby The Contra Costa Council has recently become aware of proposed amendments to
President
The Bowlby Group, Inc.
the Bay Plan. We are concerned about the sweeping impact they would have on
development within existing communities, local residents, and the economic vitality
Vice President - Finance
Terry Bowen of the region. We also fear that the amendments will cause conflicts with other
Principal regional agencies and stymie planning and development efforts by shoreline cities
GraylBowen
and counties.
Vice President - Events
Andrew B. Sabey
Partner , The Contra Costa Council is a public policy advocacy organization that promotes
Cox, Castfe & Nicholson, LLP ,
the economic vitality and quality of life in Contra Costa County and the region. The
Vice President - Task Forces Council engages on issues of critical importance to the business community and
Keith Archuleta
Principal residents of Contra Costa County, balancing the needs of a diverse county though
Emerald Consulting policy efforts that provide for economic development while retaining and enhancing
Vice President - Task Forces our communities. Our membership includes business, industry, labor, education,
Ron Wetter
Community & Government
government and nonprofit organizations.
Reiations
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.
We recognize that climate change and sea level rise will have an impact on our
Vice President - Communications economy, the environment and Bay Area communities. While the magnitude of that
Bob Brown
Director, Corporate Affairs impact may be debated, we agree it is imperative to begin the planning needed to'
AAA Northern CA, NV & UT address this challenge, However, such planning should occur in a collaborative
Vice President - Member Services process, not be dictated by one single-purpose agency.
James Brandt
First Vice President-Wealth Mgt.
Morgan Stanley Smith Barney We urge you to suspend consideration of the proposed amendments and instead
Chief Legal Counsel convene the appropriate federal, state, regional and local agencies along with
Peter McGaw stakeholder groups to prepare a comprehensive plan to protect our shoreline,
Shareholder
Archer Norris communities and economic assets. There is a wealth of experience and expertise
Immediate Past Chair
in the region and among agencies that can and should be brought to bear on this
Cheryll LeMay, Ed.D. issue. There' are many examples of such multi-party planning efforts, in the Bay
Counseling Faculty
Diablo Valley College Area and the state, that have succeeded in adopting and implementing policies and
programs achieving desired goals while balancing varied interests.
President and CEO
Linda Best
i~._
We also have some specific concerns that the proposed amendments run counter to good
regional planning. By discouraging new projects in developed areas, they would stifle
investment and innovation that could be part of a regional solution. They would also limit
development in Planned Development Areas, those identified by ABAG as most suitable for
increased density. They would drive affordable housing further away from job centers and
existing transit infrastructure, thus increasing traffic congestion and air quality.
The amendments would cause conflicts with the land use-related directives of AB 32 and SB
375, that need to be resolved before BCDC takes action. In addition, the proposed terms create
ambiguity as to how far inland they apply, setting the stage for wasteful litigation over the lawful
extent of BCDC's authority and prolonged disputes between regional agencies - leaving local
jurisdictions and private property owners caught in the middle.
In summary, we recommend you suspend consideration of the proposed amendments and

begin the collaborative process.
Sincerely yours,
Linda Best
President and CEO
1355 Willow Way, Sle. 253, Concord, CA 94520-5755 925.246.1880 voice, 925.674.1654 fax info@conlracoslacouncil com
www.conlracoslacouncil.com
.Ii please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
T
I
October 5, 2010
Joe LaClair
IR1 [@:(G~~~~[Q)
50 California Street, Ste 2600 OCT - 5 2010
SAN .fRANC1SCu bfl.Y CONSERVATION
&. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Dear Mr. LaClair:
Please accept this letter as input into your public process related to the proposed Bay
Plan Amendment 1-08 concerning Climate Change scheduled for public hearing this·
Thursday, October 7, 2010.
After reviewing the proposed changes to both the "Findings" and "Policies" sections of
the Plan, we have a number of concerns regarding the proposed language. Those
sections of particular concern include:
P. 9, Section e: "In planning and designing projects for the Bay shoreline, it is prudent
to .. ,.preclude development that cannot be adapted to sealevel rise."
P. 12, Section 0: "Approaches for ensuring public safety in developed vulnerable

shoreline areas include: ... (3) discouraging permanent new development; (4) allowing
only interim new uses that can be removed or phased out as inundation threats increase;
and (5) removing existing development."
P. 13, Section r: "In some cases, the regional goals of encouraging infil/
development.. .redeveloping closed military bases and concentrating housing and job
density near transit. .. may conflict with the goal of minimizing flood risk ....To minimize this
conflict, infill or redevelopment in low-lying areas can be clustered on a portion of the
property to reduce the area that must be protected ..."
P. 14, Section s: "Allowing development in these areas would preclude important habitat
enhancement opportunities."
We understand that the intent is to provide guidance to developers, the general public,
local governments and governmental agencies regarding the need to plan for a rise in
sea levels. However, the overall tone of the language suggests a strong preference for
curtailing, minimizing, or altering proposed and existing waterfront development.
In the East Bay, the waterfront has always been a tremendous economic asset that has
provided jobs and opportunity for millions of residents. The redevelopment of a number
of our former military facilities in Alameda, Concord, and Oakland represent some of the
region's best opportunities for building the economic and business infrastructure of the·
future.
For this reason, we hope you will consider allowing additional time for the public to
consider and provide input regarding the proposed changes to the Bay Plan. East
1221 Oak Street, Suite 555, Oakland CA 94612 / (510) 272-3885 / www.eastbayeda.org
Formerly nIl' Ecol/ol/lic DeI'('I0l'lIIel/l /\/Iiollcelor BL/sil/e" rf:DAllJ
EDA is an eager partner in your efforts to plan for sea level rise while embracing new
investment that will allow the waterfront to continue to playa vital role in the East Bay's
economy.
!!~ L - -
~~;
Executive Director
Copies to:
Sean Randolph, President & CEO, Bay Area Council Economic Institute; Chair, BCDC
Keith Carson, Alameda County Supervisor District 5, Chair, East Bay Economic
Development Alliance
Alameda County Supervisors
Susan Muranishi, County Administrator, Alameda County
David Twa, County Administrator, Contra Costa County
Mary Piepho, Contra Costa Supervisor, District III; 2nd Vice Chair, East Bay Economic
Development Alliance .
East Bay City Managers and Economic Development Directors
~~(G~~~~[Q)
Genentech OCT -5 2010 .
A Member of the Roche Group
SAN FRANCISCO ];lAY CONSERVATION
& DEVELOPMENT C.'OMMlSSION
R. Sean Randolph, Chair

San Francisco Bay Conservation and· Development Commission
San Francisco, California 94111
October 5,2010 .
VIA EMAIL AND UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
RE: Opposition to Proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change
Dear Mr. Randolph:
Genentech wishes to express its opposition to the proposed Climate Change Amendments to the
Bay Plan (Amendments) to be considered by the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) on October 7,2010. The proposed Amendments would establish new and
onerous restrictions on development and impact land use planning decisions well outside BCDC's
jurisdiction. . To avoid far reaching adverse impacts to the San Francisco Bay region,
consideration of this proposal should be postponed until BCDC staff has coordinated with
affected cities, communities, land owners, and businesses and prepared an economic and
environmental analysis of its proposal.
By way of background, Genentech, a world leader in biotechnology, has been delivering on the
promise of biotechnology for marc than 30 years, using human genetic infonnation tQ.discover,
develop, manufacture and commercialize medicines for patients with seriolls or life-threatening
medical conditions. Today, Genentech has multiple products on thc market and many promising
. projects in the pipeline. With approximatdy 13,000 regular full-time employees, Genentech has
been consistently recognized as one of the top places to work in the United States. In March"
2009, the company became a wholly owned member of the Roche Group, and Genentech's South
San Francisco site now serves as the headquarters [or Roche pharmaceutical operations in the
United States.
While we support climate change planning, the restrictive and open-ended language of the
Amendments would result in region-wide capital disinvestment, conflict with existing municipal
and regional plans and create substantial new litigation risk for Bay shore and other projects. The
affects of the Amendments would be felt acutely by the region's world-class bio-technology
industry and its employees located on the San Francisco Pcninsula, where BCDC staff anticipates
substantial Bay inundation. . .
The Amendments, for example, call for the creation of a region-wide climate change adaptation
plan that would, among other things, "detelminc where existing development should be protected
and infill development encouraged, where new development should be pennitted, [and] where
existing development should eventually be removed to allow the Bay to migrate inland." Given
that the funding, regulatory structure, and legal authority to establish this adaptation strategy are
not yet in place (nor contemplated by the Legislature), the Amendments would create tremendous
land use planning uncertainty for the foreseeable future. Moreover, because the Amendments
provide that only a highly circumscribed set of project-types should be approved in potential
inundation zones until the adaptation plan is in place, thc Amendments will have an immediate
effect on growthand capital investment.
Further, the Amendments would project BCDC's influence well beyond those areas where BCDC
actually has jurisdiction, creating conflicts with established municipal and other agency plans.
This conflict would have sevcre consequences. Because the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requires consideration of project consistency with environmental plans and policies,
including the Bay Plan, NIMBYs are sure to argue that the Amendments must be considered
regardless of the project's zoning or climate change mitigation measures. Therefore, to defend
against such attacks, it is an open question whether a project that does not fit into one of the
Amendments' narrow carve outs should be covered by less than a full environmental impact
statement, an activity that is measured in increased cost and delay.
Finally, we are concerned that BCDC would propose such a far-reaching plan without conducting
a thorough environmental and economic analysis. Such an analysis should incorporate not just
the affects of sea level rise, but the affects of the proposed plan itseif. We are equally concerned
that BCDC has not consulted with affected cities, communities, employers and land owners with
respect to the current, proposed Amendments. Without this consultation and analysis we do not
believe that BCDC is in a position to conclude that the Amendments will have "no significant
adverse environmental impacts."
We, therefore, urge that the Commission defer consideration of the proposed Climate Change
Bay Plan Amendments until BCDC has consulted with affected stakeholders and conducted the
1 necessary analysis to understand and appropriately mitigate the Amendments' environmcntal and
economic effects. We would be pleased to participate in this effort; however, Genentech firmly
opposes the proposed Climate Change Amendments as they now stand.
Sincerely,
d~~
Senior Director
Genentech State and Local Government Affairs
cc: Members, BCDC

Will Travis, BCDC
Jim Wundemlan, Bay Area Council
Building and Construction Trades Council
ofAlameda County, AFL-CIO 8400 Enterprise Way, #205
Oakland, Ca. 94621 - btca@flbcglobaLnet
(510/430-8664. Fax 430-8128
October 6, 2010
Andreas Cluver
Secretary-Treasurer
Will Travis, Executive ~irector
R. Sean R~ndolph, Chamnan,
r~" ~,rr,,""'l..l,'~ ~,~ n"l \V,17 fE,C:
. .!~) U;; \~y d".~, 11 .j .s;;
'II'r"\\IJ
Rob Stoker
President San Fr~ncls.co Bay Con~ervatlOn and Development COlllilliSSl?pt '. L::::J
Fernando Estrada
50 Cahfomm Street, SUlte 2600 - OCT - 6 2010
Vice President San Francisco, CA 94 n 1
~AN FPJ\.NCJI:i.Q(;~;f\'i{ eIJNS~RVAl'lON
Auto & Marine Painters, #1 176
Re: Bay Plan Climate Change Amendments , &, DJl'Y,E~OPMENT COMM1SSl.ON
Boilermakers, #549
Brick & Tile Layers, #3 Dear Director, Chainnan and Commissioners:
Carpenters, #713
It has come to our attention that your agency is considering amendments to the BCDC Bay
Carpenters, #2236
Plan that are intended as a response to sea level rise resulting from global wam1ing.
Carpet & Linoleum, #12
Cement Masons, #300 Our Building Trades Council supports responsible and necessary actions that will address
Electrical Workers, #595 global wanning. However, we must say that we are disturbed with the lack of participation
Elevator Constructors #8 and dialogue surrounding this important consideration coming before the Commission on
Glaziers #169 October 7, 2010. Given the stakes and potential impact of what is proposed, we are very
Hod Carriers, #166
concemed to just be leaming of this and that your agency would be proceeding without
Insulators & Asbestos Workers, #16
having fIrst conducted a robust public dialogue that a matter of this gravity demands.
Iron Wprkers, #378 , It-is our understanding tha;t the Bay Plan amendment would set land-use policies, priorities ,"
Laborers, #67 and guidelines for property under threat of the 55-inch sea level rise that is predicted to take
Laborers, #304 place by the end of the century. It is our understanding that BCDC estimates impact of
Lathers, #68L approximately 213,000 acres, the vast majority of which falls outside BCDC purviev.:.
Millwrights, #102
We understand that the proposed amendments tend to recommend retreating from some
Operating Engineers, #3
undeveloped shoreline areas, discouraging new construction in other areas and perhaps
Painters, #3
abandoning some low-lying residential and commercial development. We also understand
Pile Drivers, #34
there is an absence of discussion about what levee and flood-control systems should be built
'Plasterers, #66 to protect infIll residential growth and safeguard existing neighborhoods. -
Plumbing & Pipe Fitting, #355
Roofers, #81 Finally, on behalf of the twenty eight AffIliated Unions and the approximately 40,000
Sheet Metal Workers, #104
working men and women represented by this Council and our Affiliated Unions, we
Sign Painters, #5 I0
strongly support a deliberative process. We are very concerned that this proposed
amendment is being considered on October i h, with a potential adoption vote in November,
, Sprinkler Fitters, #483 '
just a few weeks after the document was posted on your web site, with little or no media
Steamfitters, #342
attention, and without the benefit of an EIRunder the California Enviromnental Quality Act.
Teamsters, #853
I respectfully request a continuance of this matter and that discussion be initiated that
UA, Utilities I Landscape, #355 involves all stakeholders.
Sincerely,
d-e?-r-~
Andreas Cluver
Secretary-Treasurer
AC:op
opeiu:29/afl-cio
PIIlIA
:=-.
.41. . . .
-:14;C-
SAl"': FRANUSCU wW CUNSERVATION
October 5,2010 & DEVELOPMENT COMMiSSION
Mr. Sean Randolph

Chair
50 California Street, Ste 2600
RE: Bay Plan Amendment No.1-OS - Climate Change
Dear Chair Randolph and Commissioners:
On behalf of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA), which represents ocean
cmTiers and marine terminal operators doing business at all of California's public ports,
including those within the planning jurisdiction of the BCDC, I write to clarify the relationship
between pr6po·sed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 and existing seapoi"! planning. .
PMSA wishes to memorialize for the record, that nothing in Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 in any
way, shape or form changes the Bay Plan's Findings and Policies on Ports and Airports, nor
1 does it make any changes in the existing Seaport Plan, as amended through 2007.
1
i
We have no quarrel with the aims of these amendments in general, nor are we concerned with·
their adoption in light of the factthat it does not abridge, amend or supersede the. Seaport Plan. .~. \ " ,k • " '. ~.;,,'"'' •
As such, we would respectfully request that the Commission formally recognize that
Amendment 1-08 does not affect the Seaport Plan when it takes action to adopt these changes.
Please do not hesitate to contact me regarding this or any other maritime issues.
Sincerely,
~
Mike Jacob
Vice President
cc: Commissioners, BCDC

Mr. Joe LaClair, BCDC
Advocation, Inc.
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association

250 Montgomery St., Suite 700, San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 352-0710 fax (415) 352-0717
BAY AREA~COUNCIL (I Bay Planning Coalition
October 6, 2010
Mr. Will Travis and Commissioners
S. F. Bay Conservation and Development Commission ~hN f'l<.JJ\I{"';l~CLJ ],lAY ~QNSERVATION

&: DIiV.~lJO?!~ENT (;'{)N~VJ.1SS10N
San Francisco} CA 94111
Subject: Proposed BCDC BayPlan Amendments on Climate Change September 3 Staff Report and
hearing October 7, 2010, San Francisco, 1 p.m.
Dear Mr. Travis and BCDC Commissioners,
We appreciate and support the leadership that BCDC has exhibite'd in bringing public awareness of the
major economic and environmental impacts that climate change and sea level rise will have on the
communities and economy of the Bay Area.
Over the past year the Bay Area Council, the Bay Planning Coalition, and the Building Industry
Association of the Bay Area along with our respective members have convened a task force to give
specific and detailedinplft into the propoS~,9 B9yp,lan Amendl]'J~nts releCised October 5, 2009. After
working extensively' with BCDC staff throughaufthis tiineperiod, we were extremely disappointed With
the Bay Plan Amendments that were released for public comment on September 3,2010. We have
significant concerns about the most recent revision of the Bay Plan Amendments and cannot accept
them as reflections of our in-depth work over the past year. While the proposed Bay Plan Amendments
have had marginal changes in language, the business community and our task force partners have not
been adequately reflected in the proposed language, furthermore, the basic principles that we espouse
have not been incorporated. The proposed Bay Plan Amendments, if adopted, would cause undue and
unnecessary harm to the Bay Area's economy.
As strong supporters of AB 32 and SB 375, we believe that greenhouse gas and smart growth are
integrally intertwined with the long term impact of sea level rise. Given the fragile state of the economy
and the recent progress on regional initiatives to implement the 58 375 mandated Sustainable
Community Strategy (SCS), it is imperative that we don't rush the process of guiding our future policies
around sea level rise and climate change. For an issue of this magnitude there needs to be a robust
public engagement process that is balanced with other regional interests.
October 6, 2010
Re: Proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change Sept. 3 Staff Report and hearing October 7,2010,
San Francisco, 1 p.m.
Page 2
We firmly believe that the current process should be broadened to create the type of comprehensive,
thoughtful, and balanced solution demanded by this complex issue. The fundamental issues surrounding
the current version of the Bay Plan Amendments and the significant concern of the task force and our
partners across the Bay region suggest that we recommend keeping the public hearing open and
working with the task force and our partners to create and use a new integrative, consensus-driven
partnered approach to amending the Bay Plan Amendments. We recommend that a subcommittee of
BCDC commissioners lead and direct a Bay Plan Amendment stakeholder group including
representatives from each city and county on the bay, relevant federal agencies, and key stakeholders
such as our task force.
For reference we have attached our original detailed task force recommendations and cover letter dated
June 4,2010. Many thanks for your attention and support of our recommendations at the October 7
hearing on this critical matter.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Wunderman, President and CEO
Bay Area Council
Ellen Joslin Johnck, Executive D'irec1:or
Bay Planning Coalition
Paul Campos, Vice President and General Counsel
Building Industry Association of the Bay Area
I
-I-----~
CITY OF BRISBANE
50 Park Place
Brisbane, California 94005-1310
(415) 508-2100
Fax (415) 467-4989
October 6,2010
5AN FRA.NCWCiJ biW CONSERVATION
Commission Members & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
50 Cl;llifornia Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA94111
Re: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1 p08- Climate Change
Th'1I1k you for the opportunity to comment on the above-referenced proposal. While the City
supl?qrt~ r~gi()na) efforts to mitig<;lte for and adapt to potential climate change impacts, we only
recentlybecalTle aware of the proposed amendment and have not had sufficient opportunity to
fl.l!ly.apa.1yzethe proposal and its potential implications on the City of Brisbane. We therefore
regllestth~qhis'lTIatter be continued to allow suffiCient time for additional review and analysis.
The City believes that the amendment represents a significant policy direction for BCDC with
potentially important implications on local land use and infrastructure. As sLlch, the proposal
\Varmntsa higl1 yrlevel of olltreach to and engngement with potentialiy affected jurisdictions than
ha~Rscu,i'fecl.:t9.da,te. ¥/e strongly enpourage the Commission to direct BCDC st,~ff to engage in
Cldditi6n~dXaj~g~i'e with potenticiny affected cities and counties before formally considering the
pr()Poseda\h~l1~ment. Such an outreach effort would provide BCDC staff tbe opportunity Lo
111C>i:e (l.lllyeX-plfiin the proposal ancl its implications on affected jurisdictions, and engage in a
cl,ialoguelNith·1Qcal goverlllnents regarding our potential-.Goncerns. It would furtber enhance the.
abilityofloc~l jurisdictions to provide meaningful ancl informed input into the process, while
prONidingBCDCstaff the opportunity to address concei'11S or clear up misconceptions that bave
been raised in other comments received to date.
Thank you for your consideration regarding tbis matter.
Sincerely,
a::Jz tA j iJ«
Clayton L. Holstine
City Manager
c: John Swiecki, Community Development Director
ProviaingQjla(jty SenJices
I
I
I
T-------
I
~~~ CALIFORNIA
COASTKEEPER. PO Box 3156. Fremont. CA 94539
ALLIANCE (510) 770 9764 www.cacoastkeeper.org
Humboldt October 6, 2010

Baykeeper
Mr. Joe LaClair SAN FHANCISCU HAY CONSERVATIuN
Inland Empire & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Waterkeeper San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Conunission
Klamath San Francisco, CA 94111
Riverkeeper Submitted via email tojoel@bcdc.ca.gov.
Monterey
Coastkeeper RE: Proposed San Francisco Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08 Concerning Climate Change
Orange County Dear Mr. LaClair,

Coastkeeper
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these COlmnents on behalf of California
Russian
Riverkeeper Coastkeeper Alliance. California Coastkeeper Alliance (Alliance) represents 12 Waterkeeper
groups spanning the California coast from the Oregon border to San Diego. The Alliance and
San Diego its member Waterkeepers work daily to protect and maintain healthy coastal and estuarine
Coastkeeper habitats throughout the state. On behalf of the Alliance, I strongly support San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development COlmnission's (BCDC) work to issue clear guidance on how to
San Francisco
Barkeeper manage sea level rise in the San Francisco Bay Area.
San Luis Obispo Sea level has risen eight inches since 1900 and is projected to rise more than an
Coastkeeper additional foot by 2050, and nearly five feet by 2100. Much of the Bay Area's critical
infrastructure lies close to the shoreline, at or near sea level: two international airports, multiple
Santa Barbara
Channel keeper emergency and health care facilities, myriad industrial facilities, and 21 wastewater treatment
plants. The inundation of any of one of these sites could disrupt the delivery of critical public
, Santa Monica services to large numbers of Bay Area residents and release unknown amounts of pollutants into
Barkeeper
the enviromnent. As sea water creeps inland, salt water will intrude into the Bay Delta Estuary
, .. , ..,~, '. Ventura and groundwaterbasins, impacting ecosyste!ph~aJt\1. 'tnd fresh:-v.r~!J~r supplies. Additionally,
Coastkeeper many of the Bay's low-lying wetland areas are at risk of inundation, which could undennine
Bay Area communities' substantial investments in restoring wetlands and tidal marshes.!
We now know that projected sea level rise, combined with high tides and stonn surges,
will put Bay Area infrastructure and ecosystems at risk much sooner than 2050. BCDC's
adoption of a strong Bay Plan Amendment Concerning Climate Change (BPA 1-08) can protect
the critical wetlands and shoreline areas that sustain a high quality of life for Bay Area
residents. Alternatively, a weak or delayed policy will put public safety and the local economy
and enviromnent in jeopardy. I therefore urge BCDC to adopt a strong Bay Plan Amendment
Concerning Climate Change that will protect vulnerable Bay Area communities and ecosystems
from sea level rise.
I See Matthew Heberger, Heather Cooley, Pablo Herrera, Peter H. Gleick, and Eli Moore, "The Impacts
of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast" (2009), PIER Research Report, CEC-500-2009-024-D,
Sacramento, CA: California Energy C0111111ission ("Pacific Institute SLR Report"), p. 29 (citing Hutzel
2008) ("Numerous wetland restoration projects have been initiated in the San Francisco Bay, with the
cost of restoring these tidal marshes ranging from $5,000 to $200,000 per acre.").
1
I. BCDC's AMENDMENT OF THE BAY PLAN TO ADDRESS SEA LEVEL RISE IS A REASONABLE
EXERCISE OF ITS LEGAL DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
BCDC's adoption of climate change amendments to the Bay Plan is not only a permissible
exercise of its authority, it is necessalY to BCDC's fulfillment of its two primary mandated
responsibilities. BCDC's mission is twofold: protect and enhance the San Francisco Bay and encourage
2
its responsible use. With an estimated $62 billion worth ofproperty3 and hundreds of acres of wetlands .
at risk of inundation or flooding from sea level rise,4 BCDC cannot fulfill its mission without issuing clear.
guidance on how to address sea level rise. The planning and regulatory activities squarely within
BCDC's jurisdiction are already understood to encompass the management of sea level rise impacts.
. BCDC's Climate Change Amendments merely provide additional clarification and guidance on existing
policies in the San Francisco Bay Plan, which date back to July 2001: 5
Policy 4: "To prevent damage from flooding, structures on fill or near the shoreline should have
adequate flood protection including consideration of future relative sea level rise as determined
by competent engineers.,,6
Policy 6: "Local governments and special districts with responsibilities for flood protection
should assure that their requirements and criteria reflect future relative sea level rise and should
assure that new structures and uses attracting people are not approved in flood prone areas."?
I
-~ In addition to pennitting authority strictly conferred to BCDC by state legislation, BCDC has
additional powers and duties which must be considered in interpreting BCDC's role in regulating
shoreline areas impacted by sea level rise. BCDC has public trust responsibilities, which are. statutorily
conferred under the McAteer-Petris Act. 8 The Bay Plan calls upon the Commission to ensure that trust
uses "such as commerce, navigation, fisheries, wildlife habitat, recreation, and open space" are
preserved. BCDC also has management authority as the federally-designated state coastal management
agency for the San Francisco Bay segment of the California coastal zone. This means that, like the
California Coastal Commission, BCDC can use the authority of the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act to ensure that federal projects and activities are conducted consistent with state law and, in this case,
the policies of the Bay Plan.
. .... ,
~
..- - ~,. ~
BCDC's development and implementation ofBPA 1~08 is supported by state guidance on climate
change. The Governor's California Climate Adaptation Strategy specifically noted that the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission, along with the State and Regional Water Quality
Control Boards, California State Parks, and the State Lands Commission should "continue to develop
2 "[BCDC] is dedicated to the protection and enhancement of San Francisco Bay and to the encouragement of the
Bay's responsible use." See BCDC's Mission Statement at http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/mission.shtml.
3California Natural Resources Agency, "2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy: A Report to the Governor of
the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2006" (CA Climate Adaptation Strategy), p. 68 ("The
initial estimates of development in San Francisco Bay in 2100 indicate that over $62 billion worth of building and
contents could be at risk."), available at www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation.
4 Two thirds of the nearly $100 billion worth of property that is at risk of flooding from proj ected sea level rise are
concentrated on the' San Francisco Bay. See Pacific Institute Report on Sea Level Rise, p. 3.
5 Sea Level Rise is also referenced in the San Francisco Bay Plan in Finding k, p. 28; Policy 5, p. 29, in the Section
Concerning Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Around the Bay; and Policy 4, p. 34, in the Section Concerning Subtidal
Areas in the Bay.
6 San Francisco Bay Plan, p. 39.
? Id.
8 CAL GOV'T Code § 66604 (Westlaw 2010).
I
T----------·--
adaptation strategies that can be implemented through their existing planning and regulatory programs"
before November 2010. 9 Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.21 states that "[l]ead agencies
should disclose any areas governed by the general plan that may be particularly affected by global
warming, e.g.: coastal areas that may be subject to increased erosion, sea level rise, or flooding ...."
BCDC's Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 fills a badly needed void in the San Francisco Bay Area's
preparation for sea level rise providing technical· assistance and crafting a set of best practices for local
govemments and communities as they face sea level rise.
II. BPA 1-08 SHOULD REFLECT KEy COASTAL PLANNING PRINCIPLES, INCLUDING GUIDANCE IN
THE CALIFORNIA CLIMATE ADAPTATION STRATEGY.
To date, the California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) provides the best guidance on crafting
regional and local adaptation strategies to address sea level rise. BCDC, along with the Ocean Protection
Council, California Coastal Conservancy, California Coastal COlmnission, State Lands COlmnission,
Department ofFish and Game, and State Parks contributed to the development of strategies in CAS to
manage ocean and coastal resources under threat from climate change. 10 The California Attorney
General's Office also refers communities undertaking local planning processes to use the California
Climate Adaptation Strategy as guidance to "assess climate change impacts, identify areas most
vulnerable to these impacts, and to develop reasonable and rational risk reduction strategies. ,,11
The CAS articulates foundational principles and strategies to guide state and local agencies in
crafting sea level rise adaptation policies. Many of the strategies are best practices of coastal planning
that have become necessary in light of projected sea level rise. The BPA Amendment 1-08 fmdings and
policies.shoul<ireflect the following five key principles and directly reference the CAS language,. as
appropriate:
1. Restrict development in hazard zones.

2. Prioritize adaptation strategies that enhance an ecosystem's natural adaptive capacity.
3. Discourage the use of structural protective barriers such as sea walls.
4. Critical habitats must be protected and "buffered."
5. Coastal resilience is the overriding goal of adaptation strategies (instead of aiming only
to reduce vulnerability).
A. Preserve Key Provisions of BPA 1-08.
There are several existing provisions in BPA Amendment 1-08 that reference adaptation
strategies that utilize natural ecosystem processes and make shoreline areas more resilient to sea level
rise, as well as the other above-referenced key principles. I strongly support the amendments listed below
that reflect these key principles, and I urge BCDC to preserve the existing language in these amendments,
or, at the very least, the meaning conveyed in the existing language, in its fmal draft. (Please note that if a
fmding or policy is not listed below, it does not necessarily reflect a lack of support for those provisions.)
9 CA Climate Adaptation Strategy, p. 158.

10 CA Climate Adaptation Strategy, p. 72.
11 Recommendation 9 states that "[c]ommunities with General Plans and Local Coastal Plans should begin when
possible to amend their Plans to assess climate change impacts, identify areas most vulnerable to these impacts, and
to develop reasonable and rational risk reduction strategies using the California Adaptation Strategy as guidance."
http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa/generalplans.php.
IT~ ---~----~- ----- ----~~---~--------

~ Findings "k" and "I" Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Section (pp. 4-5). I support these findings,
which recognize the necessity of sediment transport to aid landward marsh migration. An
adequate supply of sediment is particularly crucial to aid the inland migration of wetlands
because the "high degree of development and infrastructure placed in near-shore areas restricts
the inland migration ofwetlands,,12 in many areas around the San francisco Bay.
~ Finding "n" Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Section (p. 5). I strongly support the addition of this
new finding to define buffer areas and highlight their ability to mitigate rising sea levels. .
Protecting critical habitat is identified as a key "near-tenn" action in the CAS in order to protect
coastal resources from sea level rise. 13 The creation of buffers of open space around beaches and
wetland areas is a dual-purpose sea level rise adaptation strategy that both increases the amount
and diversity of estuarine habitats and enhances an ecosystem's natural adaptive capacity by
allowing beaches and wetlands to migrate inland as the sea level rises.
~ Finding "e" Climate Change Section (p. 9). I strongly support the addition of this new finding,
which recommends using the most current projections of future sea level rise through an adaptive
management approach. Previous drafts of this provision have used different approaches ranging from
a "precautionary approach" to a "risk-averse approach." While employing a precautionary approach
might best protect public health and safety, I believe an adaptive management approach is an adequate
compromise.
In particular, I support the inclusion ofthe last phrase in Finding e: "... and preclude development
that cannot be adapted to sea level rise." The top priority strategy identified in the California
Climate Adaptation Strategy to protect coastal and ocean resources is "to avoid establishing or
permitting new development inside future hazard zones in most cases if new protective
. structures would be necessary.,,14 Just as the provisions in BFA Amendment 1~08 reflect BCDC;s
recognition that some development in the 100 year floodplain may be permissible or necessary, it is
critical that BPA 1-08 recognizes instances where development must be precluded.
~ Finding "f' Climate Change Section (p. 10). I strongly support new fmding "f," which defines
two important concepts in climate adaptation planning: shoreline resilience and adaptive capacity.
I submit for BCDC's consideration, additional definitions of resilience that could be integrated
info' findings and policies throughout BPA 1-08 to further highlight the importance of this
concept. A resilient ecosystem is measured by "the capacity of a system to absorb and utilize or
even benefit from perturbations and changes that attain it, and so persist without a qualitative
change in the system's structure.,,15 Additionally, a cOlmnunity's resilience is "a measure of how
well people and societies can adapt to a changed reality and capitalize on the new possibilities
offered.,,16 In resilient coastal regions, flexibility, adaptability, and durability are prominent
themes in planning and management. I?
12 CA Climate Adaptation Strategy at p. 69.

13 CA Climate Adaptation Strategy at p. 74.
14 CA Climate Adaptation Strategy at p. 72 (emphasis added).
15 Holling, Crawford Stanley, "Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems,~' Annual Review ofEcology and
Systematics 4:1-23 (1973).
16 Douglas Paton, Gail Kelly, and Michael Doherty, "Exploririg the Complexity of Social and Ecological Resilience
to Hazards" (2006). .
1? See generally Beatley, Timothy, Planning for Coastal Resilience: Best Practices for Calamitous Times.
Washington DC: Island Press ("Planning for Coastal Resilience") (2009).
4
i
T-----
~ Findings "1," "m," and "n" Climate Change Section Cp. 12). I strongly support findings 1, m, and
n, which collectively describe the importance of the San Francisco Bay shoreline and ecosystem,
and recognize some of the ways in which human cOlmnunities could be impacted if sea level rise
adaptation measures are not undertaken.
~ Finding "s" Climate Change Section Cp. 14). I strongly support this recognition that some
undeveloped areas contain critical habitat or inay be converted into such habitat, and some
developed areas may be ideal for bay migration and habitat enhancement as sea level rises. This
fmdingrecognizes the importance of "ecological variability" (i.e. allowing ecosystems to adapt
by changing and moving), which coastal planning experts identify as a fundamental coinponent of
resilience. 18
~ Policy 5, Climate Change Section Cp. 16). I strongly support this guidance on developing and
updating a regional strategy to adapt to Bay-related impacts of climate change. In particular, I
support the language, "resilient Bay and shoreline systems and increasing their adaptive
capacity." Restoring tidal wetlands, eelgrass beds, oyster beds, and other natural coastal
ecosystems creates aquatic habitats for threatened species and also establishes a natural buffer
against extreme weather.
This policy reflects a forward-thinking framework that will enable local governments and
commUnities to make decisions on a regional scale regarding "areas that should include
identification of those areas where development 'should be protected, those areas where
development should eventually be removed and those areas where the Bay should be allowed to
migrate inland."
B. Revise or Delete Language to Strengthen BPA 1-08.
A review of earlier drafts of the Bay Plan Amendment Concerning Climate Change reveals that
revisions and changes made since the initiation of the stakeholder process have substantially weakened
BPA Amendment 1-08, as reflected by the language of the September 3,2010 Draft ofBPA Amendment
1-08. The below proposed changes to BPA 1-08 the findings and policies are aimed at restoring key
coastal planning principles so that the Policy truly protects public health and safety and the San Francisco
Bay ecosystem. I)"espectfully submit the following sJ+ggestioIls for revisions:
~ Finding "m" Tidal Marshes and Tidal Flats Cp. 5). As described above, I support BCDC's
recognition in findings "k" and "1" of how sediment transport impacts the natural adaptive
capacity of wetland and marsh areas. However, I believe that finding "m," which describes
infonnation that is needed to understand sediment transport and volumes in the Bay, should
include language about the impacts that barriers, such as dams, culverts and levees, have on
sediment transport.
Suggested Revision: "Human actions, such as dredging, disposal, ecosystem restoration, and
watershed management, can affect the distribution and amount of sediment available to sustain
and restore wetlands. Dams, culverts, levees and other barriers that inhibit the natural flow of
sediments also affect the delivery of sediment to tidal wetlands. Research on these and other
impacts to Bay sediment transport processes is needed ..."
~ Finding "k" Climate Change Section Cp. 11). This finding has been revised so significantly from
earlier drafts that its original meaning has been lost completely. Language in the October 2009
18 Planning for Coastal Resilience, pp. 8-9.
1--------
draft identified the challenge of protecting all developed areas and introduced a potential solution:
to remove development. That proposal has been replaced with the statement that "[a] lack of
funding to address projected impacts frOltJ. sea level rise will limit the Bay Area's ability to meet
enviromnental, public health, equity and economic goals." This statement does not constitute a
useful fmding that can guide local action to address sea level rise in any way whatso~ver.
Suggested Revision:
Delete this phrase: "A lack of funding to address projected impacts from sea level rise '.villlimit
the Bay Area's ability to meet envirenmental, public health, equity and eeonomic goals."
Replace it with: "There may be inadequate public funding available to protect all developed areas
that are vulnerable to sea level rise and stonn surge, and some developed areas may be suitable
for ecosystem restoration if existing development is removed and the Bay is allowed to migrate
inland."
~ Policy 2, Climate Change Section (p. 14). This policy has been weakened considerably from
previous drafts by the deletion of the phrase "projects should be discouraged." It is critically
important that the Policies in the Climate Change Section, in addition to the Findings, provide
clear guidance on this central point of discouraging projects that are at risk from inundation due
to sea level rise.
Suggested Revision: "To protect public safety and ecosystem services, projects should be
discouraged within areas vulnerable to future shoreline flooding ...."
~ Policy Sa and Sc, Climate Change Section (p. 17-18). The phrase "shoreline enviromnent" has
been replaced with the phrase "shoreline development" in several provisions of BPA 1-08, -
including Policies Sa and 5c. This new phrase suggests a narrowed focus on the developed
enviromnent, which is less preferable than a phrase that encompasses both the natural and
developed enviromnent. I therefore encourage BCDC to return to the language of previous drafts
.; and use the phrase "shoreline enviromnent" rather than "shoreline development."
Suggested Revisions:
"a. advance regional public safety and prosperity by protecting most existing shoreline
1 developmeIrt shorel,ine environment, especially development that provides regionally signifi~ant
benefits ...." - -
"c. integrate the protection of existing and future shoreline development shoreline enviromnent
with the enhancement of the Bay ecosystem, such as by using feasible shoreline protection
measures that incorporate natural Bay habitat for flood control and erosion prevention ...."
C. Add Key Language to Strengthen BPA 1-08.
I believe there are two important points that are not reflected in the September draft of the BPA 1-
08, or are not adequately highlighted.
One important omission from the BPA Amendment 1-08 is language that discourages the use of
sea walls and other structures. Structural protection measures have high economic and environmental .
costs. Sea-walls frequently fail, require costly maintenance; erode adjacent beaches and coastal areas, and
decrease the natural adaptive capacity of coastal ecosystems. Sea-walls, like parking-lots, roads, and
rails, also prevent the natural migration of wetlands and reduce the amount of salt marsh, and other
habitats. Ten percent of Califomia's coast has already been annored, or "hardened," including more than
a third of coastal areas in the four southermnost counties. The pressure on agencies with coastal
management authority to approve pennits for sea-walls and levees will increase exponentially as sea-
----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
levels rise and extreme weather and coastal erosion accelerate over the next 50 years. Thus, I request that
BCDC incorporate at least one finding and one policy that explain the environmental harms posed by sea
walls and other protective structures, and discourage their use,
The second omission was reflected in the October 2009 draft of BPA Amendment 1-08, but has
since been removed. The language, "the most risk.-averse approach for minimizing the effects of sea level
rise and stonns is to discourage new development and remove existing development within areas
vulnerable to inundation," is a quintessential fmding of the Climate Adaptation Strategy. This point is
central in meeting the goals ofBCDC's Climate Change Program. Thus, I request that it be put back into
the Policy Section of the BPA Amendment.
~ Requested Addition as a Policy in the Climate Change Section: "The most risk-averse approach
for minimizing the effects of sea level rise and stonns is to discourage new development and
remove existing development within areas vulnerable to inundation."
III. THE BAY PLAN AMENDMENT SHOULD BE REVISED SO THAT PROVISIONS REGARDING INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DO NOT LIMIT BCDC's DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY.
The integration of mitigation and adaptation strategies is an important goal ofBCDC's Bay Plan
Amendment to address climate change. 19 Indeed, a climate adaptation strategy that also reduces
greenhouse gas emissions is clearly preferable from an economic and enviromnental standpoint. There
are numerous types of such dual purpose, "no-regrets" strategies. One simple example is the preservation
of wetlands, which buffer sea level rise and stonnsurges and can also be used for carbon sequestration.
Additionally, low-impact development techniques such as rain gardens and cisterns, which mitigate
flooding from storm-surges and rises in sea-level, can also reduce California's substantial energy budget
dedicated to moving water (20%) by creating local, sustainable supplies.
Over the course of revisions to the Bay Plan Amendment, the larger policy goal of prioritizing
adaptation strategies that reduce our regional carbon footprint seem to have been replaced by a narrower
preference for infill development. Infill development, defmed in the latest BPA Amendments as "the
economic use ofunderutilized or vacant land, or the rehabilitation of existing structures or infrastructure
located in an area where supporting infrastructure is in place and that is surrounded by existing
development that either is or will beserved by transit," is certainly a key component of meeting our state
and regional greerlhouse gas emissi~ns goals. However, infill development scenarios should not be ..
interwoven throughout BPA 1-08 to the extent that it undennines the primary aim of climate change
amendments to protect the public's safety and Bay ecosystems within BCDC's jurisdiction, particularly
because infill development in areas that are vulnerable to sea level rise is directly at odds with state
guidance in the CAS, which states:
All levels of government are encouraged to consider:

o Incentive programs to enc9urage property owners in high-risk areas to relocate or limit future
development.
o Clustering new development in areas considered to have a low vulnerability to sea-level rise.
o Creating additional buffers and setbacks for new construction to minimize risks to people
and property and to proteCt coastal resources such as natural habitat and recreational areas?O
19 Staffs preliminary recommendations highlight working with the Joint Policy Committee and other agencies to
"integrate regionally mitigation and adaptation strategies" as a primary goal.
20 CA Climate Adaptation Strategy, p. 73
_'_. __ ._~--~-----~-~---~----_.
I
Infill development is referenced thirty-one times in the September 3, 2010 draft ofBPA
Amendment 1-08. This disproportionate focus on infill development appears to supersede other
principles and guidance reflected in the Bay Plan and is extremely problematic. Additionally, provisions
that reflect a different standard of review for infill development could arguably applied to nearly all
developments in a heavily built-out area like the San Francisco Bay Area, and may ultimately undennine
BCDC's discretionary authority to evaluate projects. Accordingly, I respectfully request that BCDC
revisit and reevaluate all references in BPA Amendment 1-08 to infill development to detennine whether
they are necessary to meet the overarching climate adaptation goals of the amendments. I also request
that BCDC consider deleting the below provisions referencing infill development, which I believe are
particularly problematic:
>- Findings "p" and "r" Climate Change Section (p. 13)
>- Finding "2" Climate Change Section (p. 13)
>- Policy 2, Climate Change Section (p. 15)
>- Policy 5(g) Climate Change Section (p. 17)
>- Policy 6(c) Climate Change (p. 18): infill de¥elopment within eKisting urbanized areas that
eontaiR development aRd imrastruemre of 5..lOh high value that the areas will likely be proteeted
'""hether or Rot the infill takes plaee.
***
i As one of California's first local planning strategies dedicated to addressing sea level rise,
~
BCDC's development of a climate adaptation policy has the potential to not only facilitate the effective
management of shoreline areas around the San Francisco Bay, but to serve as a model for the
implementation of local climate adaptation strategies throughout the state. I urge BCDC to adopt a strong
Bay Plan Amendment Concerning Climate Change and look forward to continuing to work with BCDC
staff to achieve this goal.
~ Sincerely,
. .
I ~~
Sara Aminzadeh, Programs Manager
!
I
- _ . _ ... _ - - - - - _ . -
Construction Property management Development
cr.\.. Lie 678051

MSH Group
201 W. Richmond Avenue. Sune C
Pt. Richmond CA 94801
October 5, 2010 5102155134 a!flee
5102155163 fax
Joe LaClair CAN Fl:U~NCIS(;0 '.JAY CONSERVATION

tic DEVEL,(JPMENT COMMlSSION
Chief Planner
VIA EMAIL
RE: Proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change
Dear Mr. LaClai r:
As Past President of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and a real estate developer
specializing in redevelopment projects in the East Bay, I oppose the proposed Bay Plan
Amendments on Climate Change (Amendments). The Amendments would have a far
reaching and negative effect on efforts to revitalize and create new jobs in disadvantaged
communities like Richmond and throughout the Bay Areas and would also negatively effect
the tax base in these cqmmunitiesby discouraging investment and growth.
The Amendments state tha~ only a narrow set of projects in areas potentially affected by sea
level rise should be approved until, at some unspecified point in the future, a region-wide
climate change adaptation strategy is implemented. The restrictions, including the·
establishment of a permaneht sea level rise self-insurance requirement for any brownfields
redevelopment project and a highly circumscribed definition of infill, make the carve-outs
unworkable. Moreover, the intru.sion intQ.Jocal land use decision-making without
consulting the affected municipalities, communities, and property owners is nothing short '.
of alarming.
Also striking is the absence of a meaningful environmental and economic review of the
Amendments' strategies and approaches to sea level rise. While I firmly support planning
for climate change and protection of our communities, any plan needs to evaluate the
costs, benefits and consequences of different approaches. Especially given the sweeping
changes proposed, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) should
carefully evaluate the effects of the Amendments before considering adoption.
I urge BCDC to postpone consideration of the Amendments until it analyzes the economic
and environmental impacts of its proposal and consults with the affected communities,
land owners, and municipalities. I further urge BCDC to adopt a climate change plan that
protects communities and promotes community-serving infill development.
Sincerely yours,
j~~
/ J~k R. Howe
-~-~--~---- ~ ~ ~ - ~ -
-~- -~-._------~. __._._----

SF BCDC
Letter dated 10/6/2010
Page 2

Ed Balico, City of Hercules, Commissioner, BCDC
Tom Bates, City of Berkeley, Commissioner, BCDC
Geoffrey Gibbs, The Gibbs Law Group, Commissioner, BCDC
Jim Wunderman, Bay Area Council
I
I - - - - - - - - ------------ ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
~~I .U~! :~:
. . . . ...
SAN FRANCISCO
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Where smart businessstarts.
October 6, 2010
Mr. Will Travis

Executive Director
RE: Proposed BCDC Plan Amendments on Climate Change
Dear Mr. Travis:
The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, representing over 1,500 businesses throughout
the city, is writing to urge BCDC to delay any action on the proposed climate change driven
amendments to the Bay Plan.
Adoption of the staff recommendation would extend BCDC jurisdiction far from the current
shoreline, infringing on local government land use controls; creating a de facto moratorium
on development in from Mission Bay to Petaluma to Milpitas.
It is not clear that BCDC has the legislative authority for this huge extension to your
jurisdiction. And it is certainly clear that the public has little knowledge of the ramifications
of this proposal to local land use controls, economic development and urban sprawl. Simply
put, this plan amendment is not ready for prime time. The Commission should refer the
draft to public jurisdictions, business, labor and civic organizations throughout the Bay Area
for more in depth study and comment. .;-
Please provide the members of your commission with a copy of this letter.
Sincerely,
JIM LAZARUS
Sr. Vice President
I
!
-[i ---------------~------~------------ -------_._-~----------
---~---- -- - --_.-. --_._-~~----
SAN MATEO COUNTY
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
1153 Chess Drive #206 • Foster City, CA 94404 • Tel. (650) 358·9977' Fax (650) 358·9979
October 4, 20 10

R. Sean Randolph, Chairman
SAN FRANClSCU UA-l' CONSERVATION
& DEVELOPMENT COWLMISSION
Dear Executive Director, Chairman and Commissioners:
Most recently, it has come to our attention that on October 7, 2010, the staff of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission ("BCDC") will be proposing amendments to the BCDC Bay
Plan that are intended to address the potential of a 55-inch sea level raise that is predicted to take place by
the end of this ·century.
It is our understanding that the proposed amendments affect 213,000 acres which are well outside the
BCDC's existing geographic and policy jurisdiction under the McAteer-Petris Act. Additionally, we have
been told that the proposed amendments are being made without. environmental r~view under the
Califorriia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
Although the BCDC began drafting these amendments in March 2009, staff has received input from fewer
than a dozen individuals and organizations, largely Bay-focused environmental groups and a few business
associations that regularly monitor the BCDC. These far reaching amendments to the Bay Plan have
received virtually no press coverage, and elected officials and community leaders in areas that will be
affected by the new regulations have little or no knowledge that these amendments are being considered.
The San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council believes it is important that
stakeholders and all levels of government collectively need to address this issue, and that because of the
potential dramatic negative impact that the proposed amendments will have on local governments,
developers and land owners around the bay, an economic and environmental impact review should be
conducted.
With this letter, we are respectfully requesting that the BCDC defer the adoption of the proposed
amendments on October 7, 2010, that a full discussion be initiated involving all stakeholders, and an EIR
and an economic impact analysis be conducted. Thank you for your consideration of this request.
William A. Nack
Executive Officer
G>~73
[0) fE (G ~ ~'#~ rR\
Lru OCT - 6 2010
lJ:!)
-'
October 3,2010
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
R. Sean Randolph Will Travis
Chair Executive Director
BAY CONSERVATION AND BAY CONSERVATION AND
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
c/o Bay Area Council 50 Ca1ifomia Street, Suite 2600
201 Califomia Street, Suite] 450 San Francisco, Califomia 94111
Re: Proposed Climate Change Amendments to BCDC Bay Plan
Chainnan Randolph and Executive Director Travis:
It has come to our attention that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission is considering establishing new policies governing low-lying
areas that could experience inundation or flooding due to the predicted rising of the seas
as a result of climate change and global wanning.
It also has corne to our attention that the proposed new polices could erode local
government control over land-use, development and flood-protection measures in areas
susceptible to 55-inch sea-level rise 811d that the proposal suggests that some low-lying
areas may no longer be suitablefor new constlUction 811d may need to be abandoned.
This comes as great concern to us as cOlmnunity leaders who work with lower-
income African-American residents of Richmond who reside in low-lying areas and who
watched in honor as entire neighborhoods of New Orleans were washed away five years
ago in the flooding that accompanied Hurric811e Katrina.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undermines local

political control and responsibility over investment and flood-control measures in our
community is of grave concern to us. We are disturbed to be learning of this almostby
chance and at this late date with a hearing on the new policies scheduled for October 7.
We call for postponement and ask tliat you commence a deliberative process that
is transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders. We can be reached through Ms. Sabrina
Saunders, of One Accord Voter Project, at (415) 574-8285.
I ~~~-~----~---~--- --- ~
1
October 3, 2010
SA.."'J Flv\NCJS.CU lJAY CONSERVAnON

&, D~VEGQPMEN':f COMNUSSION
c/o Bay Area Council 50 California Street, Suite 2600
201 Califomia Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94111
!talso has come to our attention that the proposed new polices could erode local
susceptible to 55-inch sea-level rise and that the proposal suggests that some low-lying
areas may no longer be suitable for new construction and may need to be abandoned.
This comes as great concern to us as connnunity leaders who work with lower-
watched in horror as entire neighborhoods of New Orleans were washed away five years
ago'ill the flOOding that accompanied Hurricane Katrina.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undennines loca:!

community is of grave concern to us. We are disturbed to be learning of this almost by
We call for postponement and ask that you commence a deliberative process that
is transparent and inclusive of all stakeholders. We can be reached through Ms. Sablina
Sincerely,
ft.~#~~~
~rg~~
~---'-_._ ..... _----- .. _ - - _ .. ----~- -------- ----._----

\fi\E(C~GYl~ [ll
October 3, 2010
OCT -62010
lSCU PAY CONSERVATION
R. Sean Randolph Will Travis SAN FP..ANS onM:NT COMMlSSION
Chair Executive Director & DEVbL " < ••
clo Bay Area Council 50 California Street, Suite 2600
201 Califomia Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, Califomia94111
It also has come to our attention that the proposed new polices could erode local
govemment control over land-use, development and flood-protection measures in areas
This comes as great concern to us as community leaders who work with lower-
. ago in the flooding that accompanied H\lrricane Katrina.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undennines local

cOlmnunity is of grave concern to us. We are disturbed to be learning of this almost by
Sincerely,
~\J1L
~~~~
r-------
I ------ ----_.~ - . _.. ~ -~~-- -----~ ------ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - ---- --------------- _ ... - - - - - - - - -------- - - ------------------------ - -_ .. _------_._~---~_._._--._--_._----- -
~~CC~~W~!Ql
October 3,2010 OCT -6 2010 ....
SAN IiP~J'i~'ISC(; k5AY CQNSERVAl'WN
R. Sean Randolph Will Travis ~~ DEvELDPMgN1 CQN'j.,,~ISSlON
201 CaJifomia Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94111
government control over'land-use, development and flood-protection measures in areas
! areas may no longer be suitable for new construction and may need to be abandoned.
This comes as great concern to us as community leaders who work with lower-
I
I
·ago in the floodingthat accompanied Hurricane Katrina.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undermines local

community is of grave concern to us. We are disturbed to be learning of this almost by
chance and at this late date with a heanng on the new policies scheduled for October 7.
We call for postponement and ask that you .commence a deliberative process that
Sincerely,
C-o..",,--' ,,,,-':)«-- \\,\\S C-n,....~ '-'..:,\~ c ~"""~~

~~
_._._~---_._----_._---------_.~~-- -~ ~~ ----- -----~~------~-
- ---------------------~~ -----------------_. __ ...
1~-~6-.1~ 15:~3 FROM-City Manager's Offic 510-578-4306 T-071 P001/002 F-259
CITY OF NEWARK, CAUFORNIA
37101 Newark Boulevard· Newark. California 94560-3796· (510)578"4000· ;FAX(510)'57)3"'~30B;:;1

. .
.. n\\ if
Ig) U;;: th" It':', II \'v; [£; tiJ
~ ~
October 6,2010 . UU ocr _6 Z010

SAN FR.-\NCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
Chair Executive Director'
c/o Bay Area Council 50 Califomia Street, Suite 2600
201 California Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94111
Re: Proposed Amendments to Bay Plai1 Regai"ding Climate Change
~
Chair Randolph al1d Executive Director Travis,
I all) writing to express my concern regarding the pendiIig proposed amendments to the Bay Plan
regarding climate change, sea level rise, and related issues. While no one seriously can doubt
!
~
i
that the implications for the San Francisco Bay Region of climate change and sea level rise must
be considered and addressed, I question whether the direction of the proposed amendments - of
which r only recently learned - are the best and most productive way to analyze and engage on
I the issue.
I
i
.As a preliminary !natter, I'm troubled that I only recently learned the proposedal11endi11ents were
pending. While the Staff Report stateS that the Commission and staff have been considering
these amendments since May 2009, it Was only l"ecently brought to my attention. By the Staff
RepOlt's own account, these proposed amel1dmel1ts potentially impact $62 billion in existing
shoreline developmel1t, 270,000 people, ancl213,000 acres. Given the stakes, any proposal
addressing this complex issue should be the result of a collaborative inter-agency and robust
public outreach process.
To that end, there are certainly numerous public agencies that already have jurisdiction over
public safety and environmental issues related to flood risk. These include cities, counties, flood
control districts, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps). Conversely, BCDe has a relatively narrow band ofdirect
legislative jurisdiction and, to my knowledge, little existing experience or expertise with the
logistics of flood risk. And yet, the proposed amendmel1ts purport to establish substantive
policies and prohibitions in areas well beyond BCDC's legislative jurisdiction. And while the
Staff Rep 011 admits the breadth of the policies are well beyond BCDC's actual jurisdiction, it
nonetheless blankets these 213,000 acres with these regulations.
@ reCYCled paper web site; www.newark,org email: wilbmastel@newark.org

I
l-··---.--····.---~----~-- ----~ -------- -----~---- -.- ---- -- --.~----~-.------~--.---- - --------- -.----
10-06-'10 15:33 FROM-City Manager's Offic 510-578-4306 T-071 P002/002 F-259
Local governments are and should be concerned with the implications of the Bay Plan
establishing substantive policy mandates and prohibitions well beyond BCDC's own legislative
auth.ority. If a local government deems a pmticular project in its jurisdiction. but outside of
BCDC's actual jutisdiction, who is the final arbiter of whether the local agencies decision is or is
not consistent with the these proposed Bay Plan policies? Regardless ofthe actual answer. is the
entire dynamic not yet another invitation to litigation over local govenunent decisiolll1.1aking?
Further, it would seem that the proposed alIJ.endments effectively establish a de-facto moratorium
until some sort of regional plan is established by the Join Policy COlIl1llittee. Exceptions to that
moratoritun ate only prel"nised on the narrow exceptions unilaterally defined by BCDC in the
proposed amendments which we 110te. again. far exceed BCDC's legislative jurisdiction. Again,
who is the arbiter of whether a local govenunent decision compOlts with these policies and what
is the consequence of someone unaffiliated with either the local agency Or BCDC claiming
inconsistency? Ifnothing else, litigation is anunfortunate certainty.
Finally, I am concerned about the StaffRepOli's conclusion that such sweeping policies will
have no significant impacts wOlihy of full consideration under CEQA via an envirOn1l1eIltal
impact report. What will be the impact on existing shoreline communities and infrastructure?
As to the amendments' directive to "preClude" and Hdiscourage" development, what are the
~
implications for sorely needed housing - especially affordable housing projects - in existing job
centers? With the intent of reducing greenhouse gas elnissions, especially vehicle-generated
emissions, are we potentially pushing employee cotn.ll1utes further and further away fr01l1 their
jobs and thereby increasing emissions contributing to sea level rise?
!
-f
It would seem a much more comprehensive and robust discussion and analysis are appropriate in
considering the implications of sea level rise. Such a process must involve representatives of the
numerous local agencies around the Bay potentially implicated by the proposed amendments. as
well as the existh1g agencies with substantive expertise on this issues offload dsk.
. '- .
I am ready and willing to assist with and support such a process to comprehensively and
proactively engage On this essential topic. I would ask that f1-1rt11e1' actioll O~1 th.e proposed
amel1dl11ents as drafted be put off until this collaborative and interactive process call be convened
and produce a consensus strategy for a Bay-wide engagenient with the buy-in of all essential
stakeholders.
~~-~
DAV"ID W. SMITH
Mayor
10/07/2010 11:13 15107992521 COH PAGE 01
CITY OF HERCULES
111 ~IVIC DRIVE, HERCULES, CA 94547
PHONE: 510·799"8200
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERYATlON

October 7, 2010
R. SeCln Randolph, Chair Will Travis, Executive Director

Bay Conservation & Development CommissIon Bay Conservation & Development CommIssion
201 California Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, CA 94111
Via Fax: 4l5.352.3606
Re: Proposed Amendments to Bay Plan Regarding Climate Change
Dear Chair Randolph and Executive Director Travis:
On behalf of the City of HerCUles, I am writing to express our concern regarding the proposed amendments to the
Bay Plan regardIng climate change, sea level rise, and related issues. The City of Hercules Is actively working on
climate change issues in the context of current State legislation with ali of our planned projects and current
infrastructl,lre. The City has addressed sea level rise in the Intermodal Transit Center project that has been
presented to the BCDC staff, has receIved approval from the acoc Design Review Board, and approval is pending
from the Engineering Criteria Review Board. The major purpose of the Intermodat Transit Center project is to
provide commute options - rail, bus, and ferry - to residents and employees within walking distance of homes and
businesses which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The City of Hercules is concerned about the effects of theopr-opo~ed amendments on this 'rltical project, as well,as."
other projects in neighboring communities (both existing and planned) such as the the Pinole-Hercules waste
water treatment plant adjacent to the bay in Pinole, the location of the Bio-Rad campus In Hercules at the top of
the bluff adjacent to the bay, and residences In Vlctorla-by-the-Bay and adjacent to the waterfront In Hercules.
The City has aggressively planned the Intermod~1 Transit Center project to address sea level rise. We have
inclUded the Refugio Creek alignment and restoration components to the project, raised the UPRR tracks in the
vicinity ofthe creek to prevent floodIng, are constructing a new railroad bridge, and have separated the bay and
the UPRR tracks from the planned waterfront development by an extensive retalnlng wall and fencing system that
will address safety issues as well as sea level rise issues,
The City of Hercufes asks that further action on the proposed amendments, as drafted, be postponed until a
collaborative and Interactive process Can be convened between all of the stakeholders and experts.
Nelson E. Oliva, City MClnager .

cc; City Council
-------- ---~-
- -- -~~---~--------
~ - - - ~ - - -- - - - ~ -
-------~-
- --- -~---- --- - ---~ -----
10/07/2010 11:19 9255259194 PAGE 02
I~r\,
I'ni...J.i
re /r\\
_IE_. ~7!e
F n~,\vf!l It;;
r= '..:......,
O<;
, ,,'i - --. i :J It~
Iff''''''
_.,," I, \,fi','
I,
k - OCT _ 7 2010 L'::Y
3231 Main Street
Oakley, CA 9156 J, SAN ~ClSCO BAY CONSERVATION
925 625 7000 tel October 7,2010
925 625 9859 fD."
www.ci.oaklcy.ea.m R. Sean Randolph, Chair Will Travis
lv!Jl.1:uK
BAY CONSERVATION AND Executive Directo'r
Pat Andc:noT.l DEVELOPIvIENT C011MISSrON BAY CONSERVATION AND
c/o Bay Area Council DEVELOJ:lMENT COMMISSION
VICE MAYOR 20.l Ca.lifornia Street, Suite 14:>U 50 Calitornia Street, Suite 2600
Jim Fr.'l,7';).cr San Francisco, CA 94111 San Fran.cisco, California 94111
COUNCILMEI'.OI"~1'l
~1l1:lcC
Conndlcy
C~\;ol Rio~ SENT, VIA FAX - 415-352-3606
Kevin Romick
Re; Proposed Amendments to Bay Plan Regarding Climate Change
Chair Randolph and Executive Director Travis;
. We are WItting to express our concern rega,rqing the p~ndingpr.oposed amendments.to the Bay
PIon regarding cHm.ate cha.nge, sea level ri:se, and relatod i~sucs. Whlk: LlU U111;: ~t:::ril)u:;ly r.;an UQubL lbal
the i.mplications for the San Francisco Bay Region of climate change and sea level rise must be
considered and. addressed, we question whether the direction of the proposed amendments - of which we
only recently learn.ed - are the best and most productive way to analyze and engage on the issue.
-;'; . A~ a p:rt:::Hminary matter, we are troubled rhat we only recently leamed the proposed amendm.ents
were pending. While the Staff Report states that the Commission an.d staff have been considering these
I ~_
amendments sinc.e May-2009~ it wa.s only recentlybroughttoour aitention. By the St:lffRp.port's own·,· .. ,~ ,. ,.
COl' account, these proposed amendments potentially impact $62 billion in existing shoreline development,
270,000 people, and 213,000 acres. Gi.ven the stakes, any proposal addressing this complex issue should
be the result ofa collaborative inter-agency and. robust public outreach process.
Am.a:na: other issues, we are concemed abou.t the Staff Report' £ conclusion. that !iluch sweeping
polici.es will have no sign.i.:5.cant impacts worthy of full consideration under CEQA via an: environmental
impact report. Vv'hat will be the impact on existiog shoreline communities and infrastructure? As to the
amendments' directive to "preclude" and. "discourage" development, what are the implications for sorely
needed housing - especially affordable housing projects ~ in existing job cent~s? With the intent of
reducing gre'ilnhouse ga.~ emiG3ions, c3pccially vchi.clc-gcn.cr.atcd. crnh;~ion:s, arc we potentIally pushi.llg
\;--, employee CQmmutes further and further away from th:eir jobs and thereby increasing emissions
contributing to sea level rise? i
I
It would seem a much more comprehensive ~ld robust discussion and analysis are appropriate in
considering tbe implicel.tion:s of :sea level r150. Such a:1JlOcess lllu~l invulve representatives of the
num.erous l.oca.l agencies around the Bay potentia.lly implicated by the 'proposed a.mendments, as well as
the existing agencies with substantive experti.se on the issues of flood risk.
~" ..
10/07/2010 11:19 9255259194 PAGE 03
Chair Randolph
Executive Director Travis
October 7, 2010
Page 2
We are ready and wi.lling to assist wi.th and Sllpport such a process to comprehensively an.d
proactively engage on this essential topic. I would ask that further action on the proposed amendments as
dra:f\:ed be put off until this collaborative and interacti.ve process can be convened and produce a
consensus 'strategy for a Bay-wide engagt.:r.ntnt with fue huy~in of all essential stakcho·ldor:;;.
Sincerely,
f\.~
Robecca Willie
Community Development Di.rector
City of Oakley
:~ .
~ ~._--_._. _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - --.----.-~ •.. ----.-~- - - - - - - -. . . .- - - - . _ - - --------_. ~. . __ . . - __ 0. . • _

10/07/2010 11:25 9257797003 CITY OF ANTIOCH ADMN PAGE 01/02
fOJ [E (C= ~S fl \J11~ Pfl'\'

lrl1 <-::"'" ',' -= /u)
- - - - - - - 7 - ;7;""".:c-- 7 '1U"T-~i'""\-;-,---,='= ' - - - - .
',-"VI !.il..., iV
October 6, 201.0 S/l..t"'J FRAl'ICl~«)iJAy' CONSBJ.{V.ATION

& DEVELOPlvIENf COMMISSION
201 California Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, Califomia 94111
SENT VIA FAX - 415-352-3606
Re: Proposed Ame:t.'J.dml;:11ts to Bay Plan Regarding Climate Change
Chair Randolph and Executive Director Travis,
I am writing to express my concern regarding the pending proposed amendments to the Bay Plan
regard.ing climate change, sea level rise, and related .issues. While no one seriously can doubt tha.t the
implications for the Sun Francisco Bay Region of climate change and sea level rise must be considered
and a.ddressed, I question whether the direction oHhe proposed amendments - of which I only recently
lear.ned .. are the best and most produ.ctive way to a.n.a.1yze and engage on the issue.
As a preliminary matter, I am troub.led that only recently the proposed amendments have come to
my attention. While the Staff Report states that the Commission and staff have been considering these
amendments since May 2009, it was only recently elevat~d ~om,yleveL By,tbe StaffReport's own
account, these proposed amendrn~mts potentially impact $62 billion jn ex.isting shoreline development,
270,000 people, and 213,000 acres. Given the sta:kes, any proposal addressing this complex issue should
be the result of a. coHa.borative inter-agency and robust public outreach process_
Among other issues of concern is the Staff Report's conclu.sion tl,at such sweeping po.licies will
have no significa.n.t impa.cts worthy offuH consideration under CEQA via. an environmental impact report.
What wilt be the impa.ct on existing shoreline communities and infrastructure? As to the amendments'
directive to "preclude" and "di.scourage" development, what are the implications for sorely needed
housing - especia.lly affordable housing projects ~ in existingjob centers? With the intent of reducin.g
greenhouse gas emi.ssions, especially vehicle-generated emissions, are we potentially pushing employee
commutes further and further aW<l.y from their jobs and thereby increasing emlssions contributing to sea
level rise?
It would. seem a much m.ore compr.ehensive and robust discussion and analysis are appropriate in
considering the implications of sea level rise. Such a process must involve representatives of the
numerous local agencies around the Bay potentially imp.lic<lted by the proposed amendments, as well as
the existing agencies with substantive expertise: on the i.ssues offlood risk,
OFFICE or
Tli E CITY MANAG ER
200 H Sl;r'.'ct, Arttloch. CaliFornia 94509' P.O. Dol' 5007, AntiM:h. Citlif<Jrnia 9il·SJI-S{)(.l7 • nS-779-7011 • www.(:·I.~t.11.lr..(;h.ca.ll~
T------------<----------
I ~ _
10/07/2010 11:25 '32577'37003 CITY OF ANTIOCH ADMN PAGE 02/02
Chair Randolph
October 6,2010
Page 2
I would. ask that nuther action on the proposed amendments as drafted be put off until this
collaborative and interactive process can be convened a.nd produce a consensus strategy for a Bay-wide
engagement.
Cc: Mayor and City Council
-_._---- ----- .._ - ---_._------- - - --_._--------_._------------_._---._-_._---_ ..

.. __ ._--. - - - - - - - - - - _.----- - - - - - - - - - - - - -------_._---------------
rc:: rvf! ~ rn~~
~
1-;::::;;' ~
o LG \~ Le;:, U \!J J= I.! )l
I L~
OCT -72010
SAN FRl\NC1SCU bAY CONSERVATION
& DEVELGrMENl COMJVllSSION .
. October 7,2010 VIA HAND-DELIVERY AND E-MAIL
(travis@bcdc.ca.gov; joel@bcdc.ca.gov)
Mr. Will Travis Mr. R. Sean Randolph, Chair

Executive Director San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission 50 California Street, Suite 2600
50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: Comments on Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Travis and Mr. Randolph:
I am writing on behalf of Cargill, Incorporated ("Cargill") to provide
~
comments on the Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment ("Proposed Climate
Change Amendment") being considered by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
.
Development Commission ("BCDC" or "Commission") at the hearing scheduled for
I
October 7, 2010. Cargill supports the study of the potential impact of Climate Change
to the San Francisco Bay. It is essential, however, that any action taken by the
Commission to amend the Bay Plan to address climate change is consistent with
j
i BCDC's implementing statute, the McAteer-Petris Act, as amended, and BCDC's

I mission and areas of expertise. For the reasons discussed in these comments, Cargill
requ~sts that BCPC k~ep the p1,1blic hearing open until the CO.t11mission has yo)lected . ".- .. ..:.-- . .....,.
additional information on the Proposed Climate Change Amendment and has resolved
ambiguities in the proposed draft of the amendment.
As discussed in more detail below, Cargill addresses three issues in these

comments:
1. Confirmation that the Proposed Climate Change Amendment does

not amend or alter the existing Bay Plan findings and policies with
regard to the production of salt in the Bay Area, or the staff analysis in
the October 2005 Salt Pond Report ("Salt Report");
7220 Central Avenue Tel (510) 797-1820

Newark, CA 94560-4205 Tel (800) 321-1458
Fax (510) 790-8189
October 7,2010
Page 2 of6
2. To the extent that the Proposed Climate Change Amendment

proposes several findings and policies addressing flooding and
shoreline protection, Cargill encourages the Commission to adopt an
approach that avoids strictdirectives and duplicative regulation and
instead allows BCDC to support those government agencies with
specialized expertise and authority oyer land use planning and flood
control; and
3. The potential scope of the Proposed Climate Change Amendment is

unclear because a number of terms used in the proposed policies and
findings are ambiguous. This has made it difficult for interested parties .
to meaningfully comment on the proposed Amendment and, if the
Commission adopts the amendment as drafted, will result in uncertainty
for the regulated community.
Salt has been produced in the Bay Area for more than a century by a number of
companies, including Cargill and its predecessors. California recognizes the
importance of salt production in the Bay Area thrqugh legislative findings in the
McAteer-Petris Act, which declare that:
[A]reas diked off from the bay and used as saltponds and managed
wetlands are important to the bay area in that, among other things, such
areas provide a wildlife habitat and a large water surface which,
together with the surface of the bay, moderate the climate of the bay
area and alle".iat.e air pollution~.t.hat it isjn the public interest to .
encourage continued maintenance and operation of the salt ponds and
managed wetlands ...
McAteer-Petris Act § 66602.1
Cargill currently operates on approximately 12,500 acres in the Bay Area for
the production of salt through solar evaporation. Nearly two-thirds of this acreage-
totaling approximately 8,000 acres of evaporator ponds - are owned by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and used by Cargill pursuant to the terms of an agreement with
the federal· government. The remaining acreage owned by Cargill and used for salt
production largely consists of Cargill's Newark and Redwood City Plant Sites. The
amount of land devoted to salt production in the Bay Area has decreased significantly
October 7, 2010
Page 3 of6
over the last forty years, with approximately ninety percent of property formerly used
for salt production transferred to public ownership since the 1970s.
The existing Bay Plan includes specific findings and policies relevant to salt
ponds operated within BCDC jurisdiction. Additional analysis of salt production is
available in the Commission's Salt Report. The Proposed Climate Change
Amendment does not revise the Salt Pond section of the Bay Plan or amend the Salt
Report. Cargill has concluded, therefore, that the Proposed Climate Change
Amendment does not revise or amend the existing policies and findings in the Salt
Pond section of the Bay Plan or alter the conclusions in the Salt Report. Cargill
requests that the Commission confirm that the Proposed Climate Change Amendment
does not revise or amend the Salt Pond section of the Bay Plan or alter the conclusions
in the Salt Report. Any revisions to the findings and policies in the Salt Pond section
of the Bay Plan would require BCDC to seek public comment and adopt a formal
amendment through vote of the Commission.
J
In connection with its salt production operations - particularly the Newark and
Redwood City Plant Sites - Cargill operates a system oflevees in the South Bay.
Cargill performs ongoing maintenance on these levees as necessary to protect its salt
production facilities. Findings in the Bay Plan state that while the levees surrounding
operating salt ponds and associated facilities "help protect adjacent low-lying areas
~ from tidal flooding," they are "not designed or maintained for flood control." Bay
1 Plan at 64, ~ e. Similarly, the Salt Report recognizes that "levees associated with the
I
salt pond facilities were not constructed for flood protection of the surrounding .
I
communities." Salt Report at 36, Tlle Propos,~Q. Climate Change Amendment
addresses flood risks associated with potential sea level rise, but does not alter the Bay
Plan's policies related to the operation of salt ponds, require that levees related to
those ponds be maintained for flood protection purposes, or otherwise impose new
requirements relevant to Cargill's levee system. As such, Cargill concludes that
nothing in the Proposed Climate Change Amendment would impose additional
requirements on Cargill in connection with its levees related to salt production and
Cargill's responsibility and obligations for the continued maintenance ofthose levees
would not be altered. Cargill requests that BCDC confirm that the Proposed Climate
Change Amendment will not change the Commission's regulation of Cargill's levee
system or otherwise impose new requirements on Cargill's operational properties.
October 7, 2010
Page 4 of6
The Proposed Climate Change Amendment also includes a number of findings

and policies related to potential sea level rise due to climate change and the possibility
of increased risk of flooding. The Commission's legal authority and regulatory
jurisdiction over the BaY,however, is largely related to fill and public access and not
specific to climate change or flood control. As such, in finalizing any findings and
policies related to flooding due to potential climate change induced sea level rise,
Cargill recommends that the Commission avoid duplicating regulatory efforts or
issuing directives and instead adopt a supporting role that relies upon federal, other
State, and local regulatory agencies and jurisdictions with expertise in flood control
and/or authority over development and land use planning. For example, both the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
("FEMA") have authority and extensive expertise to address flood control issues,
including in response to climate change induced sea level rise. At the local level, the
Santa Clara Valley Water District operates a Flood Protection and Stream Stewardship
program designed to prevent flooding within its jurisdiction. Similarly, municipalities,
counties, and flood control districts - such as the Alameda County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District - have responsibility for flood control projects and/or
control development directly relevant to future flood risks, often working
cooperatively with the Corps and FEMA. These are the agencies that have, for
decades, established the standards to be used by land owners and project engineers.
They should be the agencies that impose any measures and/or restrictions to address
sea level rise or increased risk of flooding.
The Proposed Climate Change Amendment recognizes that:

..
1. "There are multiple local, state, federal and regional government agencies
over the Bay and shoreline. Local governments have broad authority over
shoreline land use ... " p. 14~t (Climate Change); and
2. Because BCDC's jurisdiction is limited the Commission should "provide

guidance to developers, the general public, local governments, and other
governmental agencies that have broader authority over the use and
development of areas that are vulnerable to inundation." p. 14 ~ v (Climate
Change) (emphasis added).
This is consistent with the McAteer-Petris Act, which excludes local land use planning
from BCDC's jurisdiction:
October 7,2010
Page 5 of6
[T]he commission shall cooperate to the fullest extent possible with the
Association of Bay Area Governments; and shall, to the fullest extent
possible, coordinate its planning with planning by local agencies, which
shall retain the responsibility for local land use planning."
McAteer-Petris Act, § 66631. Despite these limitations in BCDC's jurisdiction and

expertise, aspects of the Proposed Climate Change Amendment could be interpreted to
implement directives and/or different requirements related to land use planning and to
impose flood prevention requirements beyond those that may be required by agencies,
.such as the Corps and FEMA, with broad jurisdiction to regulate flood prevention.
Cargill is also concerned that many of the policies and findings in the Proposed
Climate Change Amendment are ambiguous and undefined in scope. This makes it
difficult for interested parties to meaningfully comment on the amendment and, if
adopted as currently drafted, will introduce uncertainty to the regulated community.
By way of example, the proposed amendment includes a finding that "small projects,
such as minor repairs of existing facilities, and interim uses may be acceptable if they
do not significantly increase overall risks to public safety." Proposed Climate Change
Amendment, ~ q (Climate Change). This proposed finding is ambiguous and may
!
1
actually increase, rather than decrease risks to public safety. The finding creates
ambiguity by failing to define "minor repairs" and the standard by which a
determination would be made that a project causes a "significant[] increase to overall
I risks to public safety." Furthermore, the finding does not explain how the
Commission recommends responding to projects that do not m~~t the "minor repair"
standard, leaving an implication that BCDC recommends outright denial of projects
not meeting these terms. There is not a rational basis to limit maintenance of existing
facilities provided that the maintenance itself does not "significantly increase overall
risks to public safety." Keeping the finding as proposed may provide a disincentive to
performing maintenance on existing structures within flood zones, and actually result
in increased risks to the public.
For the above reasons, Cargill requests that the Commission leave the public
hearing on the Proposed Climate Change Amendment open and work with interested
parties to address these concerns and resolve ambiguities in the draft policies and
findings. Additionally, Cargill requests that the Commission confirm whether it
agrees with Cargill's interpretation that the Proposed Climate Change Amendment
October 7, 2010
Page 6 of6
will not alter the existing Bay Plan Salt Pond policies or otherwise change Cargill's
responsibilities in connection with its levee system and salt operations. We appreciate
the Commission's consideration of Cargill's comments and look forward to continuing
to work with BCDC in the future.
Sincerely,
Bill Britt
President
Cargill Land Management
cc: Mr. Joe LaClair

San Francisco Bay Conservation
. and Development Commission
Goel@bcdc.ca.gov)
>
c'
III~ Boston Properties

October 6, 2010 .
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS AND

HAND DELIVERY
Dr. Sean Randolph, Chair, and SAl"; FRANCl.;;CiJ tiP,'!' CONSERVATION

Commissioners & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BOSTON. MA
NEW YORK, NY
PHINCEl ON. NJ
SAN fRANCISCO, CA
Subject: Staff Report and Revised Preliminary Recommendation for Proposed Bay
Plan Amendment 1-08 Conceming Climate Change dated September 3, 2010
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Dear Dr. Randolph and Commissioners:
Boston Properties has serious concerns regarding the "Staff Report and Revised
Preliminary Recommendation for Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning
Climate Change" which your staff issued last month, and which is set for hearing
before the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) on October 7. ,.
Boston Properties is a publicly-owned REIT that develops, redevelops, acquires,

manages, operates and owns a diverse portfolio of commercial properties across the
US. The San Francisco Bay Area is a core market for our company. Over time we
have made significant investments in both the properties we own here and the
communities within which they are located. We take a long-term ownership
approach and plan to continue to invest and grow here for many years to conle. In
the Bay Area, we cUlTently own and manage over 6,000,000 square feet of
commercial space spread over more than 40 buildings located in downtown San
Francisco, South San Francisco, San Carlos, Mountain View and San Jose and we
have been, or are cUlTently involved in development projects in Bay Area cities
from San Francisco to San Jose. These propeliies provide the space within which
more than '16,000 jobs can be accommodated; many more jobs are created by those
that provide services and goods to businesses and govemment agencies which
occupy our buildings.
Boston Propeliies considers itself a permanent resident of the Bay Area, and as
such, fully hopes to continue its investment in our extended Bay Area communities.
However, many of our existing and planned projects and propeliies could be
profoundly affected by the proposed Amendment. Our concerns include the
process by which this proposed Amendment was written, released and is proposed
to be adopted, the remarkable expansion of BCDC authority which its content
assert, and the potentially severe effects on Bay Area jobs and its economy which,
if adopted, it could cause.
FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER· LOBBY LEVEL, SUITE ONE· SAN FRAi'lCISCO, CALIFORNIP, 94111·5994 • TEL 415.772.0700 • FAX 415.982.1780
WWW.BOSTDNPROPERTIES.COlv, • BOSTON PROPERTIES . INC. (NYSE, BXP)
The process has not provided for public notice and input commensurate with the
importance and impact of the proposal. Sea rise is a crucial public policy issue, as
part of a coordinated region-wide effort to address all the potential consequences of
global climate change. What BCDC's staff has proposed, extending its jurisdiction
into a vast new area through an under-publicized regulatory process simply is not an
appropriate means for addressing this important issue. This is the kind of
multifaceted issue that is best addressed first by our elected officials through
legislative action.
Notice and outreach have been inadequate. For even a modest zoning amendment,
state law requires cities and counties to provide notice directly to affected property
owners. Despite the remarkable expansion of BCDC' s claimed jurisdiction this
Amendment would create, so far as we know nothing beyond the standard
publication of BCDC agendas was ever undeliaken. Although we own properties
around the Bay in areas within the so-called "inundation zone", we never were
specifically notified. Given the massive consequences to cities, counties,
homeowners and propeliy investors that the proposed Amendment would cause,
that hardly seems adequate notice and an oppOliunity for thoughtful consideration.
·Moreover, this latest version of Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 is not a mere minor ..
modification of the prior proposal which was last discussed in a public hearing in
2009. It is rather a fundamentally new proposal on the most significant issues.
Although BCDC may have conducted hearings and workshops on its prior
proposals, those hearings did not address the substance of the proposal that
currently is before the Commission. The new "Climate Change" findings and
policies section of the Bay Plan represent a radical departure from what BCDC
'. proposed'previously, both in terms of scope and regulatory impact. This new.. "C"-
language was publicly unveiled for the first till1e only a few weeks ago and BCDC
staff proposes that the Commission take final action on this sweeping regulation
after only a single public hearing. This is so despite the fact that for prior versions
- which had much less of a regulatory impact - BCDC held at least five hearings.
BCDC must slow down and allow adequate input into this latest version. This
proposal needs to be fully vetted publicly and after adequate time to understand all
the consequences.
On a more substantive point, this proposed Amendment and staff report do not
identify any convincing statutory basis for BCDC authority to impose the measures
that are proposed. The McAteer-Petris Act was adopted to allow BCDC to prevent
the filling of the Bay, and gives BCDC jurisdiction over the 100 foot "band"
abutting the high water mark. Where in the McAteer-Petris Act does BCDC staff
assert that the agency is granted the authority to expand its jurisdiction to regulate
directly and indirectly all development in the 213,000 acre "inundation zone?
Furthermore, even a modest amendment to a city or county General Plan requires

review under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Staff Report
asserts that this Amendment would be exempt, but fails to justify that asseliion. It
is unthinkable that a profound shift inland use controls and extension ofjurisdiction
would be exempt from the salutary review of potential environmental
consequences, particularly when such consequences are so predictable as the
proposed Amendment conflicts with so many adopted city, county and regional
agency plans.
In so many ways, the proposed Amendment would result, from a regulatory point of
view and as a practical matter, in a development moratorium in the "inundation
zone". This kind of indeterminate broadly-stated moratorium outside the Bay and
shoreline band is nowhere authorized by the McAteer-Petris Act. Even cities and
counties, which do have explicit statutory power to adopt development moratoria,
are subject to stringent procedures and timeframes for action, in light of the
potentially destructive impact that a moratorium can have.
Ultimately, as this Amendment is proposed, future development and ownership

would be burdened by new policies, in a regulatory environment that already makes
job creation in the Bay Area difficult. In this economic climate, communities are
.. fighting to keep jobs here, ·grow locally the companies that have been the economic
engines of this region, and convince new business leaders that the Bay Area is the
right place to call home. We therefore raise an additional concem that this
proposed Amendment would add unnecessarily to the Bay Area's already existing
cost and regulatory disadvantage in competing with other regions of the country.
In light of all the problems and issues summarized above, we respectfully ask that
theCemmission{l) fonnally defer any action- on this proposal, and (2) direct its
staff to work to rethink this Amendment in an open and inclusive process with a
broader group of affected municipalities, communities, property owners, and other
stakeholders so as to address appropriately legitimate issues of the potential rise in
water levels in the San Francisco Bay, within the Commission's existing legal
authority.
Boston Properties would be pleased to participate in that process.
cc: Christine Shen, Associate Counsel

Zane O. Gresham, Morrison & Foerster LLP
SARES!REGIS
October 6,·2010 SAN FRA.l'\lCl~C() B/\Y CONSERVATION

& DEVELOPMENT CO]v":.MISSION
Mr. Joe LaClair

Chief Planner
RE: Proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change

Letter of Opposition to Proposed Bay Plan Amendments
Dear Joe:
Sares Regis Group of Northern California, L.P. and our homebuilding affiliate Regis Homes of
Northern California, Inc. are writing to oppose amendments to the Bay Plan being considered
by your organization at your October 7 meeting. We believe the changes to BCDC's jurisdiction
have been proposed and processed without the coordination of landowners, affected cities, or
regional planning agencies.
Our .firm. has been a ,developer of smart growth in-fill projects in the Bay. Area and around.
California for over three decades. Specifically in the Bay Area, we focus on projects that
promote sustainability, transit use, and density in the right places. We have worked
successfully in many Bay Area communities and currently active in Foster City, San Mateo,
Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, San Jose and Fremont to name a few. We believe
that these changes have not been appropriately vetted through a public process and have the
potential to introduce so much uncertainty that they may stifle regional planning goals and
economic investment in the Bay Area; not to mention the affect this would have on existing
'. property owners with-ir:l the zones· of influence, ,. " "".,., ",-- ..
It is our position that BCDC should not take action on this matter until a transparent process
has been undertaken with stakeholder input.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sares Regis Group of Northern California, L.P.
X~\<.K~
Mark R. Kroll
Principal

Sophie Maxwell, Supervisor, City of San Francisco, Commissioner, BCDC
Sares Regis Group of Northern California, L.P.

901 Mariners Island Boulevard, Suite 700, San Mateo, California 94404
T: 650-378-2800 F: 650-570-2233
OCT/07/2010/THU 08:24 AM FAX No, 5102223277 p, 001
WEST COUNTY
WASTEWATER DISTRICT
A Public Agency
2910 Hilltop Onve • R;chmond. CA 94806-1974/LJ).
'Telephone (510) 222-6700 • Fax (5iO) 222·3277 • WWW·ITOff·
~ (G f§ ~ W[E I.J
org
rei')
OCT - '7 2010
October 6, 2010 SAN FFANClSC() BAY C()NSERVATION
R_ Sean Randolph Will Travis
BAY CONSERVATION AND BAYJ:ONSERY..ATION- C!ND
SENT VIA FAX - 415-352-3606
Re: Proposed Amendments to Bay Plan :Regarding Climate Change
Chait Randolph and Executive Director Travis,
We are writing to expl'ess am conce111 regarding the pending proposed amendments to the Bay
Plan l-egarding climate change, sea level rise, and related issues. While no one seriously can doubt that
the implications for the San Francisco Bay R.egion of climate change and 'sea level rise must be
considered and addressed, we question whether the direction of the proposed amendments - of which we
only recently learned - are the best and 1110st productive way to analyze and engage On the issne,
As a preIiminaIymatter, we are troubled that we only recently learned the proposed amendlnents
were pending'. While the Sta:ff'Report stato'slhat the'Commission and staff have been cbnsidei-iIig these"
amendments since May 2009, it was only recently brought to our attention. By the·StaffRepolt's own
account, these proposed amendments potentially impact $62 billion in existing shoreline development,
270,000 people, and 213,000 acres. Given the stakes, any proposal addressing this complex issue should
be the result of a collaborative inter-agency and robust public outreach process.
Among other issues, we are concerned about the StaffRepOlt' s conclusion that such sweeping
policies will have no significant impacts 'Worthy of full consideration under CEQA via an environmental
impact report. What will be the impact on existing shoreline communities and infrastructure? As to the
amendments' directive to "preclude" and "discourage" development, what are the in.lplications for sorely
needed housing - especially affordable housing projects - in existingjob CeJ1ters? With the intent of
reducing gteenhouse gas emissions, especially vehicle-generated emissions, are we potentially pushing
employee commutes further and fUlther away from their jobs and thereby increasing emissions
contributing to sea level rise?
It would seem a much mOre comprehensive and robust discussion and analysis are appropriate in
considering the implications of sea level rise_ Such a process must involve representatives of the
numeroUS local agencies around the Bay potentially implicated by the proposed amendments, as well as
the existing agencies with substantive expertise on the iss'Lles of flood risk.
BOARD MEMBERS Leonard L, Battaglia Miohael T, Caine Alfred M, Granzella George H. Schmidt Paul C. Soltow, Jr.
BOARD ATTORNEY Alfred A. Cabral GENERAL MANAGER E, J. Shalaby
OCT/07/2010/THU 08:24 AM FAX No, 5102223277 P. 00'2
Chair Randolph
October 6, 2010
Page 2
Weare ready and willing to assist with and SUppOlt such a process to comprehensively and
proactively engage on this essential topic. r would ask that further action. on the proposed amendments as
drafted be put off until this collaborative and interactive process can be convened and produce a
consensus strategy for a Bay-wide engagement with the bny-in of all essential stakeholders.
., .,:. ~.~•. , ..... _. '_'r~' ""~'.'

Iv/vr/Lv IV Vl:L;jL rllil L~IY Ur MIIKI~NtL 19]VVI/VVL
City of Martinez
--==
525 Henrietta Street, Martinez, CA 94553-2394 . (925) 372·3515
re re n
~
ri1 ~ ~ F~(925) 372·0251
'. .. .g< tb \L; LS U\:#·lE 113'
. III . ' ·0
. . . OCT -7 2010
October 6,2010 S"..N FRANClSCU Hi.. .y CONSERVATION
& DEVELOPMENT COlVlMlSSION t '--'" ".
Will Travis .~
R. Sean' Randolph
.Chair .... . .. . Executive Director \ >-......\"\\>~-.....,\
. '. .
BAY CONSERV.NTION AND

DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
~~~~=:t~~=~P"7'\-'-"!- --._-..
201 California Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, Califomia 94111
San Francisco, CA'94111
SENT VIA FAX -415-352-3606
Re: Prbposed Amendments to Bay Plan Regarding Climate Change

I
ChairRandolph ~t1d Executi,vepirector Travis: I
We are writing to express our concern regarding the pending proposed amendments to the. Say Plan
regarding climate ¢hange, sea level rise, and related issues. While no one seriously can doubt that the
implications for the San. Francisco Bay Region of climate change and sea level rise must be considered
and addressed, we'question whether the direction of the proposed amendments - of which we only
recently learned ~ are the best and most productive way to analyze and engage on the issue. I
I
As .a preliminary
.. .. --
matterLwe
'.. ..,--..
are
..
troubled
...... .
that we only. recently
" .
learned the proposed
'.
amendments
. .
were . .II
pending. While tHe Staff Report states that the Commission and staff have been consitleringthese".. ,.,'--\
amendments since May 2009, it was only recently brought to our attention. By the StaffRepon's own
account, these proposed amendments potentially impact $62 billion in existing shoreline development, . I
270,000 people, and 213,000 acres, Given the stakes, any proposal addressing this complex issue should
be the result of a collaborative inter-agency and robust public outreach process. i
Among other issues. we are concemed about the Staff Report's conclusion that such sweeping policies
will have no significant impacts worthy of full consideration under CEQA via an environmental impact
report. Wbat wiHlbe the impact on existing shoreline communities and infrastructure? As to the
amendments' directive to ''preciude'' and "discourage" development, what are the implications for sorely I
needed housing - especially affordable housing projects - in existing job centers? With the intent of 1
reducing greenhOlllse gas emissions, especially vehicle-generated emissions. are we potentially pushing I
employee commutes further and further away from theit jobs and thereby increasing emissions
contributing to sea level rise? I
I
It would seem a much more comprehensive and robust discussion and analysis are appropriate in I
I
considering the implications of sea level rise. Such a process must involve representatives of the !
numerous local agencies around the Bay potentially implicated by the proposed amendments t as well as. I
the existing agendies with substantive expertise on the issues of floQd risk. I
I
II
IV/V flLV IV VeL;jL 1"111\ [;11 v· UI" r'1,",t'i Ilr~tL 10 VVL! VVL
Chair Randolph
Executive Du-ector 'I1ravis
October 6. 2010
Page 2
We are ready andwilling to assist with and support such a process to comprehensiyely and proactively
engage on this essential topic. I would ask that further action on the proposed amendments as drafted be
put off until this collaborative and interactive process can be convened and produce a consensus strategy
for a Bay-wide engagement with the buy-in of all essential stakeholders.
Rob Schroder I
I
Mayor I
I
I
I
I
1~
I
.,'
"
!1
II
[
From: Mike Daley Fax: (888) 627-6258 To:' 1415,352,3606@rcfax,c Fax: +14153523606 Page 1 of 2 1017120109:46
EAH
October 5, 2010
R. Sean Randolph" Chair Will Travis, Executive Director

cia Bay Area Council 50 California Street, Suite 2600
---201 California Street; Suite 1450 --------8an Francis'Co; California §)4-1H--- - --
Dear Chair Randolph and Executive Director Travis,
BAH Housing is a leading nonprofit developer and manager of affordable

housing iD the Bay Area and throughout California and Hawaii. We just
recently leamed ofthe proposed Bay PI~ amendment on climate change before,
your commission this Thursday. We ask that you postpone decisions
concerning the recommendations lmtil they can be reviewed fully by all
stakeholders and a genuinetegional discussioll can take place on how best' to
deal with predicted- sea level rise.
We at BAH Housing are very concerned. Based on our intitial review, our
main concern is that the proposed Bay Plan amendmenls are at odds with other
social, economic and environmental goals and will make it harder to build
homes tor working families close to job centers and to protect low-income
neighborhQpfis 1:1-<:>11) fl,siJ,1g sea le;vels.
We have found no evidence that the mission of nonprofit affordable housing

developers such as BAH Housing and the interests of our residents and the
thousands of others who have been priced out of the Bay Area housing market
have been seriously taken into account in the drafting of the proposed
amendment. We strongly believe these 'amendments could dramatically affect
our and other affording housing developers' ability to supply sustainable
transit-oriented affordable housing.
The new policies would cover 213,000 acres, including 40 locations

(accounting for 60 percent of the land) in Bay Area designated by regional
planners as Priority Development Areas (PDA) due tu proximity to transit and
job centers. As you know, transit-oriented infill is the most efficient,
responsible way to address increased housing. needs in the Bay Area. The
unintended consequence of these well-meaning amendments would be to
• Creating community by developing, managing Illld P7"OltlOling quality affirdable housing since 1368
2169 East Francisco BLvd.
Sitit:e B
San Rafael.. CalifOrnia 94901-5531
415/258-1800 • 415/453-Q,927
From: Mike Daley Fax: (888) 627-6258 To: 1415.352.3606@rcfax.c Fax: +14153523606 Page 2 of 2 1 0f71201 0 9:46
Mr. Sean Randolph and Mr. Will Travis

.October 5,2010
.·Page2
increase greenhouse gas production by Bay Area residents due to longer

commutes and more driving.
Again, we ask that you table avote on the proposed amendments until all Bay
Area stakeholders have had an oppOliunity to review, comment on and
recommend changes.
Sincerely:' _ _
'\.
~~
Mary MUliagh
Executive Director
.,' 'f
CC:
The Han. John Gioia, commissioner and Contra Costa County supervisor
The Hon.Charles McGlashan, commissioner and Marin County supervisor
The Hon.Susan Adams, :commission alternate and Marin County supervisor
The Hon.Joan Lundstrom, commissionei' and Larkspur mayor
'. ~.;",
o . Creating community by developing, managing and promoting quality affordable housing since 1968
2169 East Francisco Blvd.
Suite B
San Rafael, California 94301-5531
415/258-1800 ·415/453-4927
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, California 94403-1388
Telephone (650) 522-7000
FAX: (650) 522-7001
Website: Ilwww.cityofsanmateo.org
October 6, 2010
~~(clEij\v~'iJ
Commissi?n Members . .. U OCT _ 7 701
.,._ .-.San FranCISCO Bay ConservatIve and Development CommissIon---------- -- ----- -- -----~- 0
l.bY
50 California
•
Street, Suite 2600 <;'AN FRANCISC(
,;> , , J
I BAY CONS",
'- _~ ;.,RV/\,TION
San FrancIsco, CA 94111 & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Re: Comments on Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment 1-08
The City of San Mateo understands that on October 7, 2010, the San Francisco Bay
'Conservation and Development Commission (BCDe) will be considering Bay Plan
Amendment 1-08 pertaining to climate change.
The Cityof San Mateo requests that BCDC recon~ider whether the proposed amendment is
nec'essaryor, at the very'least, not adopt'this' ainendnlent until the proposed regulations and
their implications are fully studied and presented to all stakeholders.
The City of San Mateo recognizes the need to address the impacts of climate change on the
San Francisco Bay Area, and agrees that a proactive approach is necessary. This approach,
however, is best implemented at a local level. The City of San Mateo presently evaluates
climate change impacts as part of its standard environmental review process for all
development proj ects and capital improvements";- Additionally, the City of Sart 'Mateo"s-' -- - ..-
Sustainable Initiatives Plan includes measures to mitigate impacts related to climate change.
Given the City's efforts to combat climate change impacts and the fact that the City already
evaluates the potential for these impacts as part of its development review process, an
additional layer of regulation may not be the most appropriate choice, or necessary, to allow
for appropriate ponsideration ofthis issue.
As the proposed Bay Plan Amendments appear to include significant policy changes that
would impact local governments, public workshops and meetings to engage local
communities should take place. This process was used by the Bay Air Quality Management
District during their recent efforts to establish greenhouse gas thresholds implementing the
provisions of AB 32. This would allow for direct input and conversation with all
stakeholders, including local agencies that currently exercise regulatory control over the
potentially affected areas.
The City of San Mateo requests that the BCDC not take any action on the proposed Bay Plan
Amendment at their October 7, 2010, meeting. The City further requests that no action be
taken on the proposed Amendment until BCDC has presented the proposed policy changes to
the local agencies and until the agencies and the public have had an opportunity to fully
review and submit formal comments of the final proposal.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
cc: Mayor and City Council

Planning Commission
Lisa Grote, Community Development Director
Larry Patterson, Director of Public Works·
Ronald Munekawa, Chief of Planning
.', ,~"'_ .,.,~ .....• "" ...... ,',__ ,';,.. ,', ."," '. l..,..,....··....~
UCI ~( c~l~ l~:c~ r~ IUWN or CORle MRDERR15 927 5087 TO 93523606 P.r.dl
October 7, 2010
~),A..J\ FRANCJ.SCU BAY CO~SEm.VAnO'N
~ . ' &. DEVELOPMENT C'OMMISSION
Commission Members
" II
:' \1'1;
I 50 California Street, Suite 2600
1 ... \', ,,' • , •• ,.. ,
THll TOWN 01'

C:OlnE MADERA
MARIN CDlJNIV ('AI,II"/)\"'I,\ Via Fax and Mail
300 TAMALPAI$ DRIVE

CORTI1 MADERA, CA
949 2 5- 1 418 Dear Commission Members:
www.•i.corte-mll.dcra.ca.us The Town of Corte Madera appreciates this opportunity to provide

comments to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
TOWN MANAG£lt Commission ("BeDC") regarding the proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-
TOWN COlJNGl/, 08 (the "Amendment'~) concerning climate change_ We are submitting
4 1 5-9 2 7-5 0 50 these general conunents in the hopes that BCDC will not adopt the
Amendment until the proposed regulations and their implications are fully
'IOWN CLER,J(
studied and presented to all stakeholders, including the Town.
415-927-5086
Given the fact that a major portion of our Town was developed in low
FINANC:t; / Bus. LICl:::NSU
lying areas immediately adjacent to San Francisco Bay, we certainly share
41 5"'9 2 7-5055
BCDC's concerns regarding the potentially drastic effects of climate
FwF.. 1)nPAR'1'MENT change on the San Francisco Bay Area and agree that a proaeti.ve approach
415-9 2 7-5077
is necessary. However we feel that this approach is best implemented at a
local level. Corte Madera, like other)ocal governments~ already evaluates
"",,-PLANNING! ZONING climate. change,impacts as. part .·of 01.'!.f .standard environmental review", ., ,. ," ~"""
41-5-9 2 7' 5064 process for projects proposed within the Town limits. Further, the State of
California has recognized through its legislative actions, such as AB 32
BUILDING h"SPEC'l'oH and SB 375, that local governments are "essential partners" to achieving
41S-9 2 7-5Q6z the State's climate change goals. This is also stated in the Ail' Resources
Board climate change scoping plan.
TOWN ENGINeER
PUBLIC WO'RKS
We are concerned that the Amendment has not been sufficiently
4 1 5-9 2 7-5 0 57 understood by the mao.y cities,agencies~ and counties throughout the Bay
Area that will be affected by. the Amendment. The Amendment proposes
Rl;c;IU~I\TION DEPARTMeNT
significant policy changes that would impact local governments, yet the
'1 1 5-9 2 7-5072
approval process for the Amendment does not appear to have fully
SANITAR.Y DIS'I'HlGT No, 2.
engaged local governments. Although public hearings and workshops On
4 1 5-9 2 7-5 0 57
the Amendment were held in 2008 and 2009, the staff report does not
identify any concerted outreach to local' governments or other
TWIN ClTJll.S POLICB AlJTHORl'L'Y stakeholders, including Corte Madera. Changes of this magnitude should
415 '9 2 7-5150 directly involve all stakeholders, including local agencies and
governments that currently exercise regulatory control over the potentially affected areas.
Through this letter, Corte Madera requests that BCDC not take any action on the Amendment at
its October 7,2010, meeting. We further request that no action be taken on the Amendment until
BCDC has presented the proposed policy changes to local agencies and governments, and until
these agencies and the public have had an opportunity to fully review and submit formal
comments on the Amendment.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look fOlWaTd to working with BCDC
on add!ess~g issues of clim~te c~a~~e_in Corte Madera and the entir~ Bay Area.
Sincerely,
...... :
David Bracken, Town Manager
** TOTRL PRGE.02 **
P.O. BOX 5381 OAI(LAND CALIFORr~IA 94605-0381
TDD. 510 633 0460 WWYV.EBPARKS.ORG
October 7, 20 I °
Sf..N FRANCISCU BAY CONSERV..A.110N
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission &. DEVELOPMEJIT COIv.IMISSION
San Francisco, Ca 941 I I
Subject: Comments on Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Regarding Climate Change
Dear Chair Randolph,
The East Bay Regional Park District ("District") is providing comments on the proposed
amendments to the San Francisco Bay Plan regarding climate changEl. We applaud your
leadership in addressing this important issue. We believe that BCDC's climate change policies
need updating so that planriing for protection of vulnerable infrastructure can begin. It should
be pointed out that the proposed amel1dmen~swill~ffect~ur existing and planned regional
parks and trails that abut San Francisco Bay. Clarification is needed on how the proposed
policies will affect our park facilities and public access to San Francisco Bay.
The District is a two-county California Special District created in 1934. We own or operate 65
regional parks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. This includes nearly I 10,000 acres of
open space and more than I, I00 miles of regional trail. More than 14,000,000 visitors use
these faciJiti~s each. ye~r.P.ortipns of~_ev~.rlt~~n [)is~ri~!~hqrelinE! parks are under B<;:DC.
jurisdiction. This includes about 7,000 acres of parkland, 100 miles of Bay shoreline, substantial
park facilities and major segments ofthe San Francisco Bay Trail.
Sea Level Rise Projections

"
The proposed amendment introduction on page 2 cites figures for sea level rise of 16 inches by
mia-century and 55 inches by end of century. Climate Change Finding "c" cites figures of I I to
18 inch rise by mid-century and 23 to 55 inch rise at the end of century. There are also other
credible projections showing greater or lesser levels of sea level rise during this same time
. period; these include 39 to 75 inches by end of century. Sea level rise estimates are based
upon a range of assumptions and even then sea level rise will likely occur at different rates than
anticipated. Is the projected 55 inch sea level rise by the year 2100 to be used as a design
standard or general guideline for determining the sustainability and permissibility of projects?
Under a 55 inch sea level rise scenario, some of our parks, such as Brown's Island (just outside
BCDC jurisdiction), would become submerged. Other parks, such as Brook's Island, would be
about 80% submerged and no longer accessible. With a few minor exceptions, virtually all tidal
marsh areas would become submerged, unless sediment accretion keeps pace with sea level
Board of Directors
Doug Siden Beverly Lane Carol Severin John Sutter' I 'vVhitney DOLSon Ted Radke Ayn V'/ieskamp Par O'Brien
President Vice-President Treasurer Secretary Ward I V'/ard 7 Ward 5 General Manager
Ward 4 Ward 6 Ward 3 Ward 2
rise. Large segments of the San Francisco Bay Trail would be inundated. Many underground
utilities, restrooms, play fields and parking areas would become unusable. Simply put, many
shoreline parks and trails would no longer be functional or accessible without unprecedented
improvements and major funding initiatives that are beyond the capabilities of the District.
Climate Change Finding"C" concludes that "it is prudent to rely upon higher projections in the
range of possible future sea level rise", This statement requires some clarification. Does
"higher" mean above the 55 inch scenario? Climate Change Policy" I" also notes that "at least
one high estimate" should be included in the sea level rise projections. This statement is
unClear. Would this high estimate be the previously identified 55 inches or some higher rise?
Climate Change Finding "E" concludes that development should be precluded if it "cannot be
adapted to sea level rise". This statement requires some clarification. We do not believe that
making park and public access improvements for the public benefit necessarily fits within the
definition of development as may be the intent of the proposed policies.
Adaptability must be linked to the intended useful life and purpose of the development.
Improvements in marine environments, such as fences, gates, docks, boat ramps, restrooms,
utilities, trails, pavement and landscaping generally have a much shorter service life due to
corrosion, erosion, subsidence, inundation, storm surge and vandalism. A planning horizon of
2\ 00 (90 years) would not be practicable for the District. A service life of 25 years would be
. '".;..-,,-, :;..;..:, .. appropriate for consideration of rising sea level effects andsustainability of improvements.
The District is already seriously considering sea level rise implications in our wetland
restoration projects. For instance at Breuner Marsh in Richmond, we are looking at restoring
and enhancing existing poor quality seasonal wetland and low upland areas that will become salt
marsh with sea level rise. This area is very important as we believe critical habitat for a number
of endangered species may be lost with sea level rise as it floods out existing pickleweed marsh.
Ibe restored Breuner Marsh will provide.this opportunity for sp.ecies migt:ation.. Clearly
flexibility and differences in planning approach is needed in setting policies that apply to open
space and park settings, as opposed to developed urban areas.
Risk Assessment
Climate Change Policy" I" and "2" make reference to a risk assessment that should be
prepared for the estimated mid-century and/or IOO-year flood elevations. Is it the intent of
these two policies for permit applicants to perform this assessment? If this be the case then the
proposed policies should provide guidance on the purpose, scope and content of the required
risk assessment. We would also recommend that they differentiate between residentiall
development and park and open space improvements.
How will permit applicants prepare such analyses given that there is considerable uncertainty
about rates and effects of sea level rise? Who would be qualified to perform such analyses? Is
this a qualitative assessment or would a quantitative statistical analysis be required?
2
Adaptive Management and Financing Mechanisms
The draft findings and policies make reference at several locations to the need for adaptive
management plans and strategies for the sustainability of shoreline areas. Bay Plan policies
should reflect that (non-enterprise) public agencies have limited financial resources and ability
to obtain additional operating funds for adaptive management.
Public granting agencies and philanthropic organizations that provide funds for park and public
access improvements generally have limited ability to provide funding for adaptive managemen( .
maintenance and monitoring of capital improvements and habitat restoration projects.
.-
The District has limited taxing capabilities due to the restrictions imposed by Propositions 13
and 218. Environmental maintenance measures failed to pass in 2000 and 2002 by the requisite
66 2/3% requirements of Proposition 218. Measure ce, passed in 2004, provides maintenance
funding for just five shoreline parks. It will sunset in 2019. Its funds have been committed to
existing projects and staff positions. Measure WW, passed in 2008, provides bond funding for
land acquisition and capital projects, but no funding for staff and maintenance activities.
Only the District's General Fund tax assessment could be used for adaptive management in our
shoreline parks. Due to the current recession, foreclosures and diminished assessed values,
General Fund tax revenues will have diminished a total of 12% by the end of 2013. We believe
it will take until 2018 to recover to 2008 revenue levels. These figures do not consider
inflation or increased 6peratin'gcosts that will delay General Fund recovery to about 2020.
Design Guidelines
It is clear that sea level rise design guidelines should be adopted that provide information to
prospective BCDC permit applicants on how to design their projects to be sustainable. The
lJistrict is developing several new public access and restoration projects along the San
Franci~.(;o ~ay Shor:elil1~.Tb~s_eil1.c1vcl~AlbanyB~ach at Eastshore Sta,te Park, Breuner Marsha!
Point Pinole Regional Shoreline and key segments ofthe San Francisco Bay Trail. New permit
requirements for these projects may slow their progress and increase long-term operating
costs. We hope that BCDe will adopt a flexible set of guidelines that differentiate between low
risk park development and high risk resid~ntial, commercial and industrial development.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed polices. Please call me at (510)
544-2622 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
M~
Brad Olson
Environmental Programs Manager
cc. Board of Directors

Pat O'Brien, General Manager
Robert E. Doyle, Assistant General Manager
3
10-06-/10 17:45 FROM-City of Emeryville 510-450-7831 T-254 P0002!0002 F-638
CITY .OF EMERYVILLE

IN'C'ORPO'RAi'gp 18oj~ .
1333 PARKAVENUE
EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA.94608-3517
TEL: (510) 596-4300 FAX: (510) 450-7831
.October 5, 2010
[Ri IE rc ~ II ~£1LE [Ql
Joe Le Clair' - 'OCT - 7 2010
Sl...N FRANCiSCU BAY CONSERVA:TlON
50 Califomia Street Suite 2 6 0 0 - - -- --- - -- &. DEVELOPMENTCOMMISSlON .
Re; Proposed Bene Bay Plan Amendments Concerning Climate Change

. .
Dear Mr. La Clair
This is in regards to the Bay Plall Amendmelits that are being considered at the October i h
heating.. We are concerned about the scope of the proposed policies and respectfully request
that no action be taken at the conclusion of the October 7th hearing and that the matter be
held over for further public input by the affected stakeholders including cities that are subject
to Bene regulation. -. -.
Emeryville has just completed a five year process to create a new General Plan which includes a
Sustainability Element. We are well aware of the need to appreciate the potential affects of
climate change given our bay shoreline. However we have concerns regarding several of the
proposed Bay Plan Amendment policies:
1. L1mitat16nori'ne~deveI6prrieiifiinfir!rl:;egi'oiialsealevel rise adaptation strategy can he -

completed (page 17, policy #6).
2. Limitations and policies conce11ling shoreline areas that include: discouraging permanent
new developmel1.t; allowing only interim new uses that can be removed or phased out;
.and removing existing development (page 12 Section 0).
3. Limiting in fill redevelopment to clustered areas within low lying areas, eveu though in
fill development and redevelopment ate regional land use goals (page 13 section 1').
Emeryville's land use challenges include both the need to recognize climate change hazards
consistent with the Bay Plan and the need to accomplish in-fill redevelopment which is
consistent with regional land use policies. We have spent several years developing land use plans
and porices that achieve a balance. We request the opportunity to ensure that the Bay Plal1.
amendments do not contradict what our local plan seeks to achieve. Please suspend action 011 this
proposed amendment and spend additional thl1e ellgaging stakeholders in further discussion.
Sincerely,
ilMA {M~
. Ruth Atkin
Mayor
One Accord Voting Project
• •
Acts 2: I "And when the day ofPentecost was fully come, they wlfj t'~ ~ nc\W~ IQ'\{'lace."
October 6, 2010 Lnl OCT -72010

l!J1
Board of Directors
Sabrina Saunders
SAN FRANClSCu HAY CONSERVATION
&. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Sandra Moore
Frederick Gaines
--- ---Advisors BAY
~---_ ... CONSERVATION
_. ---- .-.
AND--- . __ ._-------_._--
-_.,.
BAY CONSERVATION AND
Bishop Donald E. Green DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
San Francisco Christian Center c/o Bay Area Council 50 California Street, Suite 2600
20] California Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94] ] ]
Pastor J. Edgar Boyd San Francisco, CA 9411 ]
Bethel A.M.E.
Dr. Arelious Walker

True Hope Church Of God in Christ Re: Proposed Climate Change Amendments to BCDC Bay Plan
Father Daniel Carter
Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church
Chairman Randolph and Executive Director Travis:
Dr. James McCray, Jr. . . ..... .
Tabernacle Community Development On behalf of concerned ministers who work with largely African
Corporation American communities of Riclunond, including residents oflow-Iying
neighborhoods vulnerable to sea-level rise, I submit the enclosed four
Pastor Lane Hawkins
copies of a letter objecting to the proposed Bay Plan amendment on
Neighborhood Baptist Church
climate change scheduled for hearing Oct. 7. .
Dr. Alvin C. Bernstine
... ~~thJe!1em~issionalYBaptist Church The signats:>ries-Rey .12r. .~~me,s ~._ ~p-~~'man, Pilgrim Rest
Missionary Baptist Church, the Rev. VIis G. Redic, Mt. Zion Missionary
Pastor Calvin Jones, Jr. Baptist Church and the Revs. Carla M. and Andre Jackson, Caniage Hills
Providence Baptist Church
COlmnunity Church-could not attend the hearing and are requesting a
Pastor Leroy Johnson
postponement for the reasons stated in the letter.
SF Greater Life Foursquare Church
If you have any questions or wish to contact the ministers, I can be
Pastor Leversie Johnson reached at (415) 574-8285.
SF Greater Life Foursquare Church
Dr. Joseph BLYant, Jr.

CalavLY Hill Community Church
Sincerely, /. ,._)
4~~
Sabrina Saunders
624 Francisco Street, San Francisco, California 94133

A non-profit organization dedicated to increasing civic participation in the African-American Faith Community.
CITY OF EMERYVILLE
INCORPORATED 1898
1333 PARKAVENUE
EMERYVILLE. CALIFORNIA 94608·3517
TEL: (510) 596·4300

FAX(510)45(}7831~~ iC ~ ~ \V/ [E []
October 5,2010 ocr - 7 2010 ~
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVA1'lON

Joe Le Clair &. DEVELOPMENT COMMJ.SSION
50 California Street Suite 2600 -- ----- . ---------- ---
Re: Proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments Concerning Climate Change
Dear Mr. La Clair
This is in regards to the Bay. Plan Amendments that are being considered at the October i h
hearing.. We are concerned about the scope of the proposed policies and respectfully request
that no action be taken at the conclusion of the October 7th hearing and that the matter be
held over for further public input by the affected stakeholders including cities that are subject
-to BCDC regulation.
Emeryville has just completed a five year process to create a new General Plan which includes a
Sustainability Element. We are well aware of the need to appreciate the potential affects of
climate change given our bay shoreline. However we have concerns regarding several of the
proposed Bay Plan Amendment policies:
1. Limitation on new development until a regional sea level rise adaptation strategy can be
completed (page 17, policy #6). -~...
2. Limitations and policies concerning shoreline areas that include: discouraging permanent
new development; allowing only interim new uses that can be removed or phased out;
and removing existing development (page 12 Section 0).
3. Limiting in fill redevelopment to clustered areas within low lying areas, even though in
fill development and redevelopment are regional land use goals (page 13 section r).
Emeryville's land use challenges inClude both the need to recognize climate change hazards
consistent with the Bay Plan and the need to accomplish in-fill redevelopment which is
consistent with regional land use policies. We have spent several years developing land use plans
and polices that achieve a balance. We request the opportunity to ensure that the Bay Plan
amendments do not contradict what our local plan seeks to achieve. Please suspend action on this
proposed amendment and spend additional time engaging stakeholders in further discussion.
Sincerely,
~a~
Ruth Atkin
Mayor
October 6, 2010
Members, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

San Francisco, CA 94] ] ] .sAN FlV\.NClSCu uhf CONSERVATION
Re: Proposed Bav Plan Amendment
By way of introduCtion,] al11 a resident and property owner in Redwood Shores (living at my lagoOii':'-
front home since 1994) and very active in my community (e.g., leadership of local and umbrella
homeowners associations, school bond oversight, and constructive engagement in Redwood City's issues
including its lagoon bank policy, General Plan, land use and property rights, and volul1teerism). I am
writing to you now as 1have just learned about BCDC's proposed amendment to its Bay Plan.
As background, I have advocated throughout Redwood City's General Planning Process that we should
be evaluating plan and project impacts with criteria that include how the plan intends/is able to cope with
the long term issue of sea level rise. ] support development proposals that contribute to sustainable
growth with a responsible eye towards the long term. 1 do NOT support "no growth" strategies.
I have read BCDC's "Staff Report and Revised Preliminary Recommendations for Proposed Bay Plan
Amendment J-08 Conceming Climate Change" and "San Francisco Bay Coast Management Program 309
Assessment and Strategy" as well as the "Bay Area Inundation and Political Map" and various documents
on your website. As a result, I am most alarmed bv the proposed amendments and believe it to be
premature and deficient especiallv in its approach to governance. regulation, and community outreach.
Governance and Regulation

While overlapping jurisdictions have always made change diffi.cult, they do serve a useful purpose as a
practical "check and balance" of what will always be competing interests. No doubt that working within
this system of competing interests is difficult and frustrating. In contrast, the staff recommends that
BCDCdrive (force?) alignment throllgh state legislation that introduces.new policies and (what
potentially could be) vastly broader jurisdictional authority for BCDC. Further cementing BCDC's reach
for expanding its authority, the proposed amendment establishes a regional strategy as (what would
appear to be) THE determinant of "where infiU development [should be] encouraged, where new
development should be pennitted, where existing development should eventually be removed to allow the
Bay to migrate inland." The proposed but as yet ulZ.5pecifiedregional strategy will clearly encroach upon
the other jurisdictional bodies and most markedly on local governments who, today, have THE legislative
authority for local .land lise.
While I see the need for a regional strategy, 1do not support the proposed approach as the "hammer" to
drive alignment.
Defic-ient Community Outreach

While the proposed language gives a "nod" to collaboration with other regional, state, federal, and local
governments, and the general public, there is a gaping silence from input from the general public and
local governments and agencies. This "silence' should NOT be constmed as tacit support for the
proposed amendment. Rather, this suggests to me that staff.has not effectively educated the public and
private sectors about BCDC's proposed changes and far reaching impact nor worked to secure the support
of local governments who have the legislative authority over land use in their respective cities and towns.
l
Conclusion
For these reasons, I encourage the Commission not to adopt the proposed amendment and direct staff to
pursue an approach that is jointly developed and endorsed by local govemments, agencies, public and
private sectors, especially those communities who are located within inundation areas with overlapping
jurisdictional agencies. Democracy is about a dialog among competing interests and arriving at a better
. solution. Clearly, we're "not there" yet in this important matter.
Thank you for considering my input and I hope you take it to heart in the spirit it was given.
Regards,
Carole Wong
852 Newport Circle
Redwood City, CA 94065
Email: C\()!ongJZWSraj.gl11ail.colll.
" .. ,,~_.,
550 Kearny St. Suite 900
October 7, 2010
Mr. Joe LaClair

Senior Planner
Re: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08

Revisions to San Francisco Bay Plan to Address Climate Change
Dear Mr. LaClair:
Over the past three decades, climate change, and the potential for significant rise in sea level has emerged as
one of the primary threats to coastal ecosystems, and to human infrastructure located in near-shore zones.
During this period, BCDC has been at the forefront of assessing the science behind predictions of estimated
sea level rise and of initiating early studies on possible responses. PWA scientists and engineers conducted
some of the early studies (1980s) demonstrating the potential severity of the impacts, and recOlmnending
possible planning responses l . Worldwide awareness of the global scale of this issue has emerged slowly but
steadily during this time, progressing from an initial skelJticis~, to a curr~nt state of overwhelming scientific
recognition of both the reality of the problem and the importance of planning our response. Once again,
BCDC is demonstrating leadership and vision in developing an appropriate response. We, the undersigned
concerned scientists and engineers support BCDC's proposal to update the Bay Plan to include consideration
of climate change based on the best information and guidance presently available, with updates based on actual
conditions and updated projections.
Plamling informed by considerations of climate 'change is consistent with contemporary thought and
."r,ecommended actions, as defined by other government agencies (eg. California:srecently p.ublished. c1imate
change adaptation strategl, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' policy for sea level rise3 and recent guidance
by the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration, a Federal Coastal Zone Management
Agenc/), as well as BCDC's role as a Coastal Zone Management Agency who's planning area is subject to
significant damage by sea levelrise 56.
1 Williams, P. B., Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd., An Overview of the Impact of Accelerated Sea Level Rise on
San Francisco Bay, Prepared for the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Project no.
256, December 20, 1985.
2 CA Adaptation Strategy to Climate Change, http://www.c1imatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/.
3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resource Policies and Authorities Incorporating Sea Level Change
Considerations in Civil Works Programs, EC 1165-2-211, June 2009. http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-

circu la rs/ec1165-2-211/enti re. pdf
4 NOAA's Planning Guide for State Mangers
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/climate/docs/adaptationguide.pdf
5 Pacific Institute Report, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/sealevelrise/index.htm
6 CA Vulnerability Report,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-071/CEC-500-2008-071.PDF
Mr. Joe LaClair
October 7, 2010
Page 2
It is particularly impOliant to plan for sea level rise before the rate ofrise accelerates further, and adaptation
becomes more difficult and costly. It provides a greater variety of options for our response, and gives us time
to make reasonable; informed choices. But it requires making real choices now, to allow wise management to
have reasonable options during the upcoming decades. While the specific methods and responses can be
subject to reasonable discussion, the importance ofbold action cannot be minimized. At risk are our
infrastructure, natural areas and communities.
We look forward to the opportunity to work with the numerous planning and regulatory agencies, impacted
landowners and involved stakeholders in developing creative and cost effective solutions to these challenges.
Sincerely,
Robert Battalio, PE Michelle Orr, PE

Coastal Engineer Civil Engineer
()M~
~ ... .
Jeffrey Haltiner, Ph.D., PE Stephen Crooks, Ph.D.

Hydrologist Coastal Geomorphologist
Philip B Williams, Ph.D., P.E.,Eur. Ing. Jeremy Lowe

Hydrologist Coastal" Geomorphologist
OMAR R. BENJAMIN
Executive Director
,/
October 6, 2010
1\1r. Sean Randolph, Chair

50 California Street, Ste. 2600
.. SanF'ranCisco, CA 9411l .....
RE: Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08 - Climate Change
Dear Chair Randolph and Commissioners:
The Port of Oakland (Port) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the Staff
Report and Revised Preliminary Recommendation for Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08
Concerning Climate Change (September 3, 2010) that will be considered by the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) at its October 7, 2010 meeting.
The Port values the need to study, understand and plan for the potential effects of ~lirrJa\e.
change and accelerated sea level rise. The Port recognizes and applauds BCDC's leadership
in promoting regional awareness, study, and understanding reg~rding the potential impacts of
climate change and accelerated sea level rise on the San Francisco Bay and Delta
environment, economy, communities and industries.
Nonetheless, the Port wishes to offer additional perspectives on the approach to addressing
climate change effects in Bay Plan Amendment 1-08, as specifically expressed in Section 6 of
the proposed newo'Ciimate Change section. In the Port's view, Section 6irnposes-a de facto"""· , .... ".
moratorium on many shoreline projects, regardless of their adaptive design or potential for
flooding during the project life.
The Port believes that Section 6 does not reflect the positive contributions that development
activities can play in finding solutions to potential sea-level rise effects. Therefore, the Port
requests that BCDC strike Section 6 in the proposed new Climate Change policy section of the
Bay Plan, for the following reasons.
).>- Universally agreed building and engineering standards will provide the required
consistency and certainty to address potential sea-level rise impacts: The Port is
confident that best management practices, as well as design and construction
standards, will be promulgated on a nationai and international scale to address sea-level
rise impacts. Such standards, similar to engineering and building code standards for
seismic safety, will provide consistency and certainty for planning and development
activities subject to potential sea-level rise effects. The Port believes that any new
regulations proposed for inclusion in the Bay Plan should reflect these universally
agreed standards.
530 Water Street - Jack London Square - P.O. Box 2064 - Oakland, California 94604-2064
Telephone: (510) 627-1100 - Facsimile: (510) 627-1826 - Web Page: www.portofoakland.com
>- Investment and development activities are an important catalyst for solutions and
strategies to address potential sea level rise impacts: The Port has a 70-year track
record in investing in, designing and developing aviation, maritime and commercial real
estate facilities along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. As a result, the Port
understands that investment and development activities on the shoreline are significant
catalysts for the adaptation solutions sought by BCDC. Thus, the Port urges BeDC to
refrain from viewing mitigation and adaptation strategies only through the lens of the
permitting and regulatory process, as expressed in the proposed Bay Plan amendments.
The Port believes an approach resting primarily on new regulations will chill the very
investment and development activities that can work within the existing regulatory
framework to create sustainable and innovative solutions.
>- Collaboration among agencies and stakeholders leads to improved dialogue and
solutions: The Port does support the formulation of a regional sea level rise adaptation
strategy, as proposed in Section 5 of the proposed Climate Change policy section. The
collaborative strategy envisions BCDC working with federal agencies, sU<.:;h as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency, state agencies,
local government, the Bay Planning Coalition, and other Bay and shoreline stakeholders,
to develop sea-level rise policies. The Port is encouraged by the reference to advancing
regional public safety and prosperity by protecting ... "airports, ports, (and) regional
transportation ... " in the goals for the regional strategy. The Port encourages BCDC to
also recognize the role that public-private partnerships must play in developing a
regional sea level rise adaptation strategy.
Thank you considering the Port's comments on BCDC's proposed Bay Plan policy changes.
-"". ...,.., ...
cc: Commissioners, BCDC

Mr. Will Travis, BCDC
Mr. Joseph LaClair, BCDC
Creating a Sustainable
s of Redwood City Community
rRi~cc~nW[E[Q)
October 7, 2010
. OCT - 7 2010--
Bay ConserVation and Development Commission
50 California Street, Suite 2600 SAN ~~ClSCO BAY CONSERVATION
& iJEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
. San Francisco, CA 94111
RE: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change
Dear Chairman Randolph and Commissioners:
Friends of Redwood City appreciates the Commission's foresight and initiative in addressing the
impacts of climate change on San Francisco Bay. We also would like to thank the Commission
and staff for taking into consideration our previous comments on the Proposed Bay Plan
Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change.
The additions and revisions to the findings and policies in the current proposed Bay Plan
Arriendment provide valuable chuificationand strengthen the effectiveness of the proposed
amendment to address the possible impacts to the Bay ecosystem and bayside communities from
climate change; however, we have one comment regarding revised language in Climate Change
Policy 6.
The Pacific Institute economic study referenced in the September 3,2010 BCDC staff report,
actually identifies San Mateo County as the Bay Area county most at risk economically from
sea'level rise. Witli two'·airports, a deepwater port, Foster City and Redwood" Shores, the fufute
costs associated with protecting what is already built will be overwhelming.
This is one reason why Friends of Redwood City is very concerned about new language in
Climate Change Policy 6 (d) that sanctions new ~arge-scale construction projects on
undeveloped shoreline areas of the Bay. Under the guise of "redevelopment that will remediate
existing environmental degradation or contamination", Climate Change Policy 6 (d) creates an
exception to allowing only true infill development in urbanized areas already needing
protection.
Although the policy states that it applies "particularly" to closed military bases, in fact, the
policy can be applied broadly, and "existing environmental degradation or contamination" is not
defmed. What parameters will be used to define "environmental degradation" and
"contamination"? For example, former salt crystallizer ponds are historic tidal marshes that are
eminently restorable, as demonstrated at La Riviere Marsh in Fremont and the restoration
currently underway in Napa. Under Policy 6(d), a local jurisdiction could possibly label former
salt pond sites as "environmentally degraded'.' because the ponds are currently diked off from the
Bay, or "contaminated" because some ponds might contain bittern from salt making operations.
Friends of Redwood City' Post Office Box 853 • Redwood City, CA 94064 • www.forwc.org • 650.369.7268
Our concern is magnified by the fact that Climate Change Policy 6(d), as currently worded,
could create conflict and inconsistencies with other proposed Bay Plan policies that call for
identifying potential restoration sites that will enhance and maintain a healthy Bay ecosystem
into the future.
We strongly recommend that language in Climate Change Policy 6(d) be modified to exclude
sites that have been determined through sci~ntific analysis to be restorable as tidal marsh or
criti.cal upland habitat for mitigating sea level rise.
Thank you very muc~ for considering our comments.
_. Respectfullyyours, -
Ralph Nobles, Founding Member

Friends of Redwood City
Friends of Redwood City· Post Office Box 853 • Redwood City, CA 94064 • www.forwc.org • 650.369.7268 2
October 3, 2010
f?6~CC~r,~~~
OCT -72010
SAN FRANCiSCO bi YCO . .,
R. Sean Randolph Will Travis & DEVELOPMEN~ CO:MISESRS\l'AflON
Chair "D"lrector.
E"xecutlve ON
Chainl1an Randolph and Executive Director Travis:
Development Commission is consideling establishing new policies goveming low-lying
as a result of climate change and global wamling.
govemment control over land-use, development and flood-protection measures in areas
areas may no longer be suitable for new constmction and may need to be abandoned.
This comes as great concem to us as community leaders who work with lower-
income Afi'ican-American residents of Richmond who reside in low-lying areas and who
watched in honor as entire neighborhoods,ofNew Orleans were washed away. five yeaI:s.
ago in the flooding that accompanied Hunicane Katrina.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undemlines local

community is of grave concem to us. We are disturbed to be leaming of this almost by
Sincerely,
L os--r' , ~"'-- \ \ ,\ \ s C-u ~ V'-- "'..: )~'\ ~ """~~

\.-.
~~
October 3, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATIO~

R. Sean Randolph Will Travis &DEvP..LOPMENT COMMISSION
San Francisco,CA 94111
Chainnan Randolph and. Executive Director Travis:
Development Commission is considering establishing new policies goveming low-lying
as a result of climate change and global waI111ing.
It also. has come to our attention thatthe.proposednew .polices could erode. local
gove111ment control over land-use, development and flood-protection measures in areas
watchedinhon"m as entire neighborhoods of New ,Qrleans were washed away fiv.e years.
ago in the flooding that accompanied Hun-icane Katrina.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undemlines local

cOlllillunity is of grave concem to us. Weare disturbed to be leaming of this almost by
chance and at this late date with a healing on the new policies scheduled for October 7.
October 3, 2010
SA..N FRf.\.NCISCO BAY CONSERVATION

R. Sean Randolph Will Travis & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
201 Califomia Street, Suite 1450 San Francisco, Califomia 94111
Chairman Randolph and Executive Director Travis:
It has come to. our attention that the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission is considering establishing new policies goveming low-lying
as aresult of climate change and global wam1ing.
. .It also has come to oUI'attention that the proposed new polices.could.erodelocal .
income Afi:ican-American residents of Richmond who reside in low-lying areas and who
watched in hO'IToras entire neighborhoods ofNew Orlean&werewashed away fiveyears·.
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that undem1ines local

cOllli11unity is of grave concem to us. We are disturbed to be leaming of this almost by
Sincerely,
/l
a 1/~"1
V ,
-I"~' 0 '
!\0f71\~··!
L
~
// .
v .
October 3,2010
SAN FR/\.NClSCCJ HI..Y CCJNSERVATION

. R. Sean Randolph Will Travis
Chail111an Randolph and Executive Director Travis:
Development Commission is considering establishing new policies govel11ing low-lying
areas that could experience inundation orflooding due to the predicted rising of the seas
as a result of climate change and global wall11ing.
'"'. .~.. '., . It also has come to .our attention that the proposed new polices could erode local·
govel11ment control over land-use, development and flood-protection measures in areas
This comes as great concel11 to us as community leaders who work with lower-
income Afi-ican-American residents of Richmond who reside in low-lying areas and who
. " ,"""'.. " . watched in-hOlTor ·as entire neighborhoods of-New Orleans were washed away five years
Any BCDC policy changes or expansion of influence that Undel111ines local

community is of grave concel11 to us. We are disturbed to be leal11ing of this almost by
chance and at this late date with a hearing on the new policies scheduled for October?
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612-2016
t.510.452.9261
f. 510.452.9266
saveSFbay.org
~lE(c~G'I§lE[]
U OCT -7 2010
October 6, 2010 ~AN "'RANCISCU 1:IhY C0NSERYATION
'" &"DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Sean Randolph, Chair

San Francisco,CA 94111
RE: Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change
Dear Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:
Protecting California's vital natural resources in the face of climate change

requires leadership and action by key state agencies, including the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). This Commission's
previous leadership has given deserving regional visibility to the issue of sea level
rise impacts on the Bay. Now you have invested more than two years of staff
work, several public hearings, and more than a year of consideration by the
.. Commission to a Bay Plan Amendment providing regional guidance for planning
in an era of sea level rise. Adoption of the proposed policy is urgent and overdue.
You should reject unsubstantiated suggestions that the current draft amendment
goes beyond the scope of BCDC's mandate - it does not.
You should reject allegations that the current draft amendment expands BCDC's
'''statutory jurisdiction - it does not and"it cannot. ",." .'-~' '"~~''' .",.< "
You should reject appeals to abort this Bay Plan amendment process, delay its
completion further, or shift this Commission's responsibility for its own policies to
any other entity.
You should adopt current staff draft amendment at the next BCDC meeting
with only the modest language changes that we recommend in this letter.
Save The Bay has provided extensive specific comments on previous drafts, and
we appreciate the Commission's consideration. In response to our suggestions
and others, the Commission gave clear direction to staff that was summarized by
the Executive Director in the Commission meeting of December 3, 2009:
"We refine the language, make it much more explicit that we're
discouraging new development in undeveloped areas ... and bring it back
together for a public hearing in two months or so." [minutes, p. 27]
Ten months later, the current proposed language of the Findings and of Policy 3 is
improved, but should more clearly and explicitly incorporate the recommendations
regarding sea level rise in the California Climate Adaptation Strategy. The
Adaptation Strategy, adopted in November 2009 pursuant to Governor
Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-13-08, is an ambitious blueprint that
includes top priority recommended actions to combat the impacts of sea level rise
by avoiding future hazards and promoting protection and restoration of critical
habitat. It was developed with extensive stakeholder input and comment through
interagency review.
- -The Adaptation Strategy recommends prohibiting development in "undeveloped,

vulnerable shoreline areas containing critical habitat or opportunities for habitat
creation," and urges state agencies to incorporate this approach into their
decisions. 1 The BCDC staff's response to our previous comments incorrectly
dismisses the Adaptation Strategy as "not developed with stakeholder input, and
not an official state policy" [Staff Report of September 3, 2010, p. 43]. In fact, it is
a matter of public record that the Strategy was developed in consideration of
extensive comments from members of the public, non-governmental organizations,
businesses, and agencies provided at two statewide public hearings and in more
than 80 written comment letters. (attached, and posted on the California
Resources Agency's web site at http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/ ).
," Because'SCDC has crucial regulatory c:i'uthoi"ity over San FranCiscoE3ay, the" ,' ..
Suisun Marsh, and their shorelines, you should adopt the recommended actions
of the California Climate Adaptation Strategy into BCDC's San Francisco Bay
Plan and Suisun Marsh Protection Plan, specifically:
Prohibition or active discouragement of "projects that would place

development in undeveloped areas already containing critical habitat,
'and thos'e co'ntaining opportlmitles f6r tid'cii wetland 'restoration, habItat
migration, or buffer zones"
Encouragement of "projects that protect critical habitats, fish, wildlife

and other aquatic organisms and connections between coastal
habitats. The state should pursue activities that can increase natural
resiliency, such as restoring tidal wetlands, living shoreline, and
related habitats; managing sediment for marsh accretion and natural
flood protection; and maintaining upland buffer areas around tidal
wetlands."
The pending Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08 offers a timely opportunity to ensure
that the Commission's regulatory and planning decisions are consistent with the
Adaptation Strategy, and to provide needed guidance to developers, the general
public, and other government agencies.
I 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy, December 2009, Section VI. Ocean and Coastal Resources
Adaptation Strategies and Actions, pp.73-74.
2
We strongly recommend that the Commission amend the current staff draft of Bay
Plan Findings and Policies on Climate Change to state clearly that new
development in undeveloped shoreline areas vulnerable to sea level rise should
not be permitted, as an essential step to encourage habitat preservation and
restoration, including acquisition where necessary to ensure protection. The best
way to accomplish this is attached.
Thank you for your consideration of these suggestions.
-Sincerely,
David Lewis
Executive Director
Attachments
RECOMMENDATIONS
Modify Proposed Policy 3 as follows:
3. Undeveloped, vulnerable shoreline areas that currently sustain diverse habitats and
species or possess conditions that make the areas especially suitable for ecosystem
-enhancement should·be preserved, enhanced or permanently protected to·allowfor,""~'- - ,'""
the inland migration of Bay habitat as sea level rises, and to address the adverse
environmental impacts of climate change. Development in these areas should be
discouraged.
Add the following new findings:
) The 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS), adopted pursuant to

Executive Order S-13-08 establishes avoiding future hazards and protecting critical
habitat as a top priority action to combat the impacts of sea level rise. The CAS says
that "State agencies should consider project alternatives that avoid significant new
development in areas that cannot be adequately protected (planning, permitting,
development, and building) from flooding or erosion due to climate change. The most
risk-averse approach for minimizing the adverse effects of sea level rise and storm
activities is to carefully consider new development within areas vulnerable to
inundation and erosion, and to consider prohibiting development of undeveloped,
vulnerable shoreline areas containing critical habitat or opportunities for habitat
creation. State agencies should generally not plan, develop, or build any new
significant structure in a place where that structure will require significant protection
3
from sea-level rise, storm surges, or coastal erosion during the expected life of the
structure. However, vulnerable shoreline areas containing existing development or
proposed for new development that has or will have regionally significant economic,
cultural, or social value may have to be protected, and in-fill development in these
areas should be closely scrutinized. State agencies should incorporate this policy into
their decisions, and other levels of government are also encouraged to do so."
) The CAS recommends that "If agencies do plan, permit, develop or build any new
structures in hazard zones, agencies should employ or encourage innovative
engineering and design solutions so that the structures are resilient to potential flood
or erosion events or can be easily relocated or removed to allow for progressive
adaptation to sea level rise, flooding, 'and erosion:"
) To promote habitat protection in the face of sea level rise, the CAS says "The state
should identify priority conservation areas and recommend lands that should be
considered for acquisition and preservation. The state should consider prohibiting .
projects that would place development in undeveloped areas already containing
critical habitat, a'nd those containing opportunities for tidal wetland restoration, habitat
migration, or buffer zones. The strategy should likewise encourage projects that
protect critical habitats, fish, wildlife and other aquatic organisms and connections
between coastal habitats. The state should pursue activities that can increase natural
resiliency, such as restoring tidal wetlands, living shoreline, and related habitats;
managing sediment for marsh accretion and natural flood protection; and maintaining
upland buffer areas around tidal wetlands. For these priority conservation areas,
impacts from nearby development should be 'minimized, such as secondary'impaCts
from impaired water quality or hard protection devices."
) The CAS recommends that by September 2010 BCDC and "state agencies
responsible for the management and regulation of resources and infrastructure
subject to potential sea-level rise should prepare agency-specific adaptation plans,
guidance, and criteria, as appropriate. Agencies with overlapping jurisdictions in the
• • •- . " o,C," C ·c. -'. c,.Goastal zone will coordinate when_drafting theseplans.to reduce. or eliminate..,
conflicting approaches." The CAS says that BCDC "should: a. Consider requiring'
applicants to address how sea-level rise will affect their project, include design
features that will ensure that the project objectives are feasible and that the project
will not be rendered unusable or inoperable over its lifespan, that critical habitat is
protected, and that public access is provided, where appropriate."
4
http://www.cIimatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/comrnents_draftstrategy/index.php
CALIfORNIA
CLIMATE CHANGfPORTAl
Public Comments - 4;>.~day Public Comment Period (August3, 2009 to September 17, 2009)
last modified
Name Size
Color dates added today
.:OO~.i..Q.P'Q:~ r:.91EL~J. :'.:cIYlll'i:-tfllli...G.t\S D(lf. Dec 03 2009 11.6 kb

;'Q!='.p-DJLQ.:1_E~.I.aC.J .•G9~J_1l§S'd~~S.-,Q.qf Dec 03 2009 10.8 kb
~9~:fLC@ 04 P.J,g'Ji.h!iJ:;.Q!:nme!.lm.i;l\~S.odt Dec 03 2009 26.2 kb
2GD2:..Q!:l.Q;.\. F R;'~LI.:@!9..~Jg1.!I!.i~D1?__k~.§.~QQi. Dec 03 2009 12.3 kb
2_~1 08..Q.4_jg;&ilJU1~}-~~SS,!PlIl!.r&DlUdj.sJ~H Dec 03 2009 15.5 kb
t.OD9 ae
04 \nj!vlici(llfl ..GQI.I!J1i£:1l!2.. i~.6f?J~ill. Dec 03 2009 15.1 kb
2Q.ml...9'§'.1~~~,A. r.wlH.2~RJfu Plan (;onlm~Ii!~..kJi~.Q~E Dec 03 2009 226.4 kb
200~:1 OS 2~3 CA Coastwalk (~9:Oln;ent5 CAS mj[ Dec 03 2009 92.3 kb
;;;Q.fJ;L.Q&..4:2..?-D~S.!lyaC&mlll...gmLG.~~..d;LQ.f Dec 03 2009 11.5kb
;J';&_:1JL~;"t .;2.C.JBJi.:.lJ.w...Q§'QD C ~':Dm~_m§._GL\5.,-Q.Qf Dec 03 2009 11.4 kb
.?~j.Q~_~)~t~.~,J)Sllv.ill..GornrJl§nts C~A;'1.QQf Dec 03 2009 15.4 kb
lQQ.f:J.033" RVVngbt Com~l1~AS.QQf Dec 03 2009 32.1 kb
~QOJ;.:_9J1_~_!5.H()jt.C9lTlrn~OL~.G.£ill.,P.Q.l Dec 03 2009 14.5 kb
?OO~JJ~02 Cf~...Ji/nrnf;:fllS CAS.D(lf Dec 03 2009 100.6 kb
ZJjOS 09 07 IvlBallf.'v c.omm\:lnts_CA.S.I)(it Dec032009 16.1 kb
200'iD2:..P..9.S;.6_f~.Q£..c.pmrnent~LC..a..~.J2.dJ Dec 032009 59.7 kb
:'::009 O~)9 Green Gn~ll.ltSH"\j CornmentsQ~JJijf. Dec 03 2009 349.9 kb
~OO~~.__!..DJ::;I\}ljfVlB COI"ilrn..plJts C:;\..~..JlQf Dec 03 2009 23.9 kb
2.QQRQ.~.-1Q~ Comm~ULG6.s.""Q.Ql. Dec 03 2009 114.8 kb
.?0092~t~ LDa'Nscn Comments CAS pdf Dec 03 2009 11.7 kb
200f109 '14 HSl1erback C.ornmf.:nls CAS g.sJl Dec 03 2009 28.6 kb
G.QbL~iL 14 Irv1I16 Rp..rJ~ll..~Q;:'§'CL~!l~[;.Ori1rnf;lots Cf.}Qj~~1.t Dec 03 2009 475.4 kb
.?..!i91:} 09 i·1 NGO.:2LQ!ml;.Qm!l1f'J1J? CA~..9f Dec 03 2009 84.2 kb
2009 09 ·!·~_O..1l~Lrbrary t~Q.coQ1n,(::nls C~.8.$_illll Dec 03 2009 36.3 kb
~.Q.Q~9 08 j.:t.$a\'f'~E.gtiliJ~TIm.?.fl!.§.. CAS..:QQf Dec 03 2009 65.5 kb
~.9._Q.~ Of!. 15 Cl\_Qsll21J:i;Jxi.~,l,1..!"tlL~t?"l}£..e.2...Q.ill..c...9.rrlrn~~C8§.J.2Qf Dec 03 2009 407.2 kb
200~ 09 15 eCA and PsrtmH CQlllfnents C~~Qf1f Dec 03 2009 26.9 kb
:WOf~ 09 '16 f;E8J3er:Jlon :;1 Commflli~~2£j.f Dec 03 2009 16.3 kb
?.Q.P.ESJ~ ..2£.:.h~llilti52L.hQJ?.: ..~.Q9f7~!i..c..9..mll1r:;nts· C.8_:$_.gg[·· Dec 03 2009 . 5 mb
~tQlJ.Q ..Q.~.JLu.S.r;.~:j3,grl.~J~&lnm7!.1!~.-r.ili9 ..QS.li Dec032009 14.1 kb
200909 H3 Ag t':;ouncri Comm\~nts t.:AS_ilQI Dec 03 2009 159.2 kb
~)09 09 1!3 eft. Coastl~et:loer Allianc(:! 1:Q.jl1rnents CAS...Q£tf. . Dec 03 2009 176.8 kb
~009 08-.16 CP·. B..JE.bJ:@f. Commenis r::1-\S Q.Q! Dec 03 2009 47.8 kb
~OQ9 O~ll~?,!';S;_~tiQ..c..9.l'Dln&nis C.8~Q.Qf. Dec 03 2009 409 kb
200S Q9 '16 Environment LA Comln~mts CAS.QQf Dec 03 2009 177.2 kb
20o;~ 09 ·if:. fv11'v1r-Nf::1'5 Cornrnt:nts CASj'llii Dec 03 2009 12.9 kb
:fOOr~ 09J.§...P.Jlbli~~Jjealttl ~alitiQn.r;_rmJ!m-:nts CAS..:p.9I Dec 03 2009 387.6 kb
.2...QO£~ 09 17 ,A,C\N/\S;ornrnents rMliQi Dec 03 2009 784.5 kb
200809 1.'7 A£'toe C'Jmments CA$.J2.Qf Dec 03 2009 128.4 kb
;008 08 17 AS(~mrovv Cornm<::nts CAS pdi Dec 03 2009 17.8 kb
... Dec 03.2009 .., ..,' 205,3·kb· ..
2009 G~l 1~: AiamedaCj=CINCQ.l;:gne .-; Cornm.&D!§ CASpdf Dec 03 2009 873.4 kb
2009. Q§lJ.z_6.udG!~9n.I!.iGJ;..G.6.~.Q[rill18ntsJ!A.~..J:-Q.f Dec 03 2009 73 kb
2QOr:J 09 J.='JJ..udubor. CAJ:;t)rnrnen1.s (~..JiQf Dec 03 2009 142.3 kb
2!.-i.Oi0.9.. 1~..I30F...RfY~~.CJ:0IiUnf;.o.l!?.c}j~i ..p.£iJ Dec032009 151.7 kb
200fl 09 1~:J~P..1f..L,11...G ..9mrn~l.l.ll:Udb'1..QQf Dec 03 2009 186.2 kb
200S rJfiJ.:?....L.6 ASf?Q01I!.lli2r.,,10';: ~?rowers CQJ..!l(!Js;nts C&n£1f Dec 03 2009 113.4 kb
2009 !J9 1 ~.E....1!2,lS fV1Ull1si ~t al..Q1.mrnen1.s CAS.odf Dec 03 2009 92.9 kb
f009 O~~ 1? eft.. Council LarKl Tn.lS1S Commsnts CA~cff. Dec 03 2009 60.7 kb
~J::!~~...Q..~.lZ..sdi£Jl!5§HV ,A.,sSf,,'l.£.CQ.o..1!nentsJ:J\~L!Wf. Dec 03 2009 45.1 kb
2Q.f,bQ 09 1i:""CfBF (";'.nrnmt:nt$.__G!.i~,LQ...ql Dec 03 2009 124.8 kb
2GO~ 09 ~7 CFS Cornmems CAS.adf Dec 03 2009 236.3 kb
4J.:JJ}...fr~.lliLlIS.Hai1sonC.QI!l!Der;t~A~ Dec 03 2009 1.5 mb
.£.QD~J OEI 1-: CU\fvP. G.9.wnerUll..6..s...R.ill. Dec 03 2009 33.3 kb
.(..G.Q~....1.?J;;'iil!.CAN CO.!Il!J:jjJ..Dlli.!":..Aii..ndf Dec 03 2009 84.7 kb
200~) 09 17 Cal APA C>:ilnrnent1; CAS .pe:if Dec 03 2009 303.8 kb
:;:009 ~!f.J 1: C~nter 6(01 Drversllv Comments CAS, ;Jat Dec 03 2009 153.4 kb
;:009 OS! 1 ~::"Oei;;.nrjef5 of vVijdlif~ Com men'S C,t\S.I2.QI Dec 03 2009 167.9 kb
~~009_)9 -: :~.EPFVj (~arnli'\ents.l;~ ..p",:;l.f Dec 03 2009 101.3 kb
2009 Oq 17 Gre6l1bslt Alli3nc§..~~omrnentsCAS.odf Dec 03 2009 127.5 kb
2CDf) 09 ·l7 JDlllard C0mniSr:ts CAS pdi . Dec 03 2009 93.6 kb
.~OO~: 09 \7 LA Co Samtatlon Drst Comments C/.l..S odt Dec 03 2009 153.5 kb
ill)£, C9 1'7 f'vlHa....,tke Comm.:-nrs (:i:"S pdf Dec 03 2009 53.5 kb
2009 G9 1'7 MSrrar:d Comments CAS.Ddf Dec 03 2009 21 kb
200~;- Q£J 1 -; NPCA r::'.:nT)m€ms CAS .c(jf Dec 03 2009 107.3 kb
2[:0909 1~' NRDC Co:nmer,ts GAS.cclt Dec 03 2009 184.5 kb
200909 1;- peL. CrJmfTiems CAS Qjf Dec 03 2009 69 kb
:f09 O~C--?j;"'E Ccmrre~!:..S.Q.Qi Dec 03 2009 33.7 kb
2008 OS 17 Pl,;'\fA Comments SAS.odi Dec 03 2009 719.2 kb
200~1 09 17 P!umasCFCVVCD ::ommsnls GAS.orn Dec 03 2009 156.3 kb
20C909 ;7 RGRC Comments CAS.adf Dec 03 2009 100.4 kb
2009;:8 '1'" SCAOfvlD Comments CAS.oaf Dec 03 2009 396.9 kb
=(,09 G9 1"? Sr.;bcr~ Cornme-nis CAS Ddf . Dec 03 2009 31.8 kb
~OC';:: Ofl ~ -;" SRcDlr.son Cornrnenis CAS (Idf Dec 03 2009 18.3 kb
Dec 03 2009 52.3 kb
http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/adaptation/comments_draft_strategy/index.php
':::-.lli-~iCfl ~'? SoCa) ~Jj5.nf, "';CJ.lli!1r::i;IS {:A_~J)~. ·Oec 03 2009 933.2 kb

.2QO.9 ').f} ". 7" .r;~~rf:::.:j~~r.E,jn !;;9!nLrL~f]1~C.A..s . g::if Oec032009 230.1 kb
2CGS 0S i ~ T;'ee;:'0(-"Dlt ::':_OlIHnen\l! CASpdi Oec032009 78.4 kb
f2.:!.E.pS 17. 'TrouUJnhlTlrred Comrnr,;;r,ts c.~S_ ....Q.Qf Dec032009 200.4 kb
20Gt.1 09 17 busll~e5S ,~oalllion r';cll1ll!.:5i.DJs (;.-\$ ad Oec032009 31.3 kb
~.D_Oi.: C·,:: :::~s...c..vmi \Nor;\;fl.~f..Cl.VQ...c":'2D.:!rr,er1!.§ .• CP.:; c.::J.t Dec 03 2009 35.6 kb
£QQ~.1~~ J.: 5_t,!_rfC!~j.7-Lr~QmT~lJ1S C.~S. t)~Jf Oec032009 121.5kb
g..ondltlo~S Gr' U;;:~ I .!?.:i.:a9:..r..:-dk:

Copyright © 2004·201 0 State of Califomia, Califomia Energy Commission
Last Modified:
California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) Discussion Draft
Public Stakeholder Meeting
Thursday, ALJgust 13,2009
-Agenda-
1. 9:00 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. Introduction

2. 9:15 a.m. -9:30 a.m. Climate Adaptation Strategy Overview
3. 9:30 a.m. - 1.0:00 a.m. Overview of Sector Adaptation Strategies
4. 10:00 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m. Public Comments
5. 11 :00 a.m. - 11 :15 a.m. Break
6. 11 :15 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Public Comments
7. 12:00 p.m. Adjourn
8. 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. Informal meeting with CAS sector leads
(in person only)
Notes on CAS Stakeholder Meeting 1:
Paul Mason -Pacific Forest Trust:

Q: What about cost? Possible ways to support the proposals?
A: With budget not best time to be asking for more money ... We have had
funding through PIERJQr coordinated research program. Manyof the
recommendations are already under the umbrella of already-funded programs.
Need partnerships with communities. We can't do it alone. Can probably do it
with existing staff.
Revenue from voluntary carbon markets and cap and trade. Private market-
biomass energy to fund forest health activities.
Dialogue at federal level for transportation for both adaptation and mitigation.
This bill may help. Need sustainable funding source. Need to decide how much
we can do' and when
Betsy Rightsneider- Catholic charities

Comment: Identifying vulnerable communities- include faith communities in this.
EJ and climate change. Share predictions for local impacts with churches etc.
Churches can be cooling centers etc. They are a very trusted entity, and can
have some very powerful outreach.
City of San Francisco-
Q: should we include an adaptation plan with our mitigation efforts to show a
need for future funding?
A: Yes
Josh Bassifen- Defenders of Wildlife

Q: DFG process to implement new reserves so species can adapt-difficult to
project species response-How will new information be incorporated into the
document to keep it adapting and living? How will DFG structure the reserves?
Strategy for cross-:sectoral collaboration for species and diversity?
A: We're looking at a mapping effort so we can predict changes in habitat and
species. Map of potential areas that may need protection. Build on existing
investments. More intensive management efforts. Group needed for scientific
panel that would represent everyone-universities, etc. Adaptive management
strategy. No-regrets strategy.
Reserve: 10 ecological regions in CA and have large reserves from already
protected areas. Give priority to lands that will best provide protection to that
which is most important in CA. Endangered species etc. Perfecting reserves.
Check progress every 5 years. Review science every five years to see how
species are changing. Adjust reserve system as necessary.
.Inter-agency coordination: Climate Action Team.
EI Dorado Irrigation District: As a local water agency-

Comment: we work on climate change assessment. Get local governments to
implement their policies. Conflicts between state agency and local agency water
management tools. There are important actions that can be implemented that
aren't called for, don't do enough etc.
Strategies don't necessarily mean implementation. Still don't have tools,
resources, etc to totally take action.
A":'Water: 'State'a~ri'crfederala~~j'e-ncTes' ~~fre' potential partners beyond 'local a'ction', ._..-- ,...~.- .-~.~,."
Need to have some kind of climate change assessment to your IRWM.
Dianne Colborn-
Q: Biodiversity being sensitive to other strategies so they aren't conflicting with
other sectors. What are other sectors doing to this end?
A: Transportation: Many partnerships outside of big state agencies. Joint study
right now to identify habitat corridors in state and a map to show. Fish and Game
needs it along with transportation etc. multi-state agency MOU for regional
planning. Overlay adaptation importance over other objectives. Not many
precious resources, need to cooperate. Plan level and state wide level. Work with
local, regional governments.
Biodiversity: Re-evaluating how we do things ... tools and programs.
Energy: Renewables-Desert renewable energy conservation plan. Holistic
approach that will protect sensitive desert regions and also to achieve our energy
goals.
· Wendy James- Better World Group-
Q: Recommendations seem timid. Should rather than will. Why? Do you lack the
authority? Do you think there is a need for a new authority or legislation? What
will allow these recommendations to be followed?
A: Depend on your perspective. This is a document in which all state agencies
state what they can and are willing to do to combat climate change. There was
much discussion about how to word the language
What is of interest to us as well is learning about what organizations and local
governments are doing across the state.
We need partners like the federal government
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman - Natural Resources Defense Council

Comment: Need to take measures now to prepare for climate change impacts-
will save money and lives. Urge you to take that another step forward. Steps that
will act to reduce the vulnerabilities that we know exist. We need more than
maps, but actions. What do we provide communities that are Isolated? How do
we get them information and cooling centers, etc.
Q: Funding: Discussion already about this was very sector specific-is there an
umbrella, grand funding search or plan?
Cross sector work: Developing scenarios based on cross sector impacts? So that
we can have responses for these events.
A: Focused on areas wherewe already know we have funding. Federal side:
Waxman Markey-clear we need further education. Most of funding is focused
on biodiversity and habitat sector. Not as flushed out in cross-sector area.
Speaking with Obama administration. Having things in writing would be helpful.
We want to be transparent and open. Advisory panel. These people will assist in
telling "How can we accomplish this?" This group will be identified by October.
Gary Rynearson - Green Diamond Resource Company-

." We "manage landa"nd"have a monitorin!:fstrcl'teg{.
Comment: P 56 section 2. Key statement.
Encourage that local, regional gov'ts be included as early in the process as
possible as well as local private land owners.
Julia Gardiner - The Nature Conservancy-

Q: Strongly supports the need for actions. "Economy and natural resources that
sustain human life." Prioritize green structures over engineered solutions.
Interested in working with you to implement report. To what degree will the final
plan layout a specific implementation plan?
A: Focusing on incorporating stakeholder input. Focal point will be teamwork. We
prioritize the most important actions and welcome stakeholder input. Final plan
will be a little more flushed out but not too much
Need partners to carry our message. Make hard choices and prioritize. Need to
collaborate to fine those win-win solutions.
Cari Hammerschag, Environmental Working Group-
Q: Ag section- higher priority for adaptation measures that are ALSO mitigation
ones. Soil health and management issues. Mulching, organic agriculture, etc.
want to see a much greater emphasis on this kind of issues.
Water quality and conservation on farms should also be given greater priority.
Inc. soil organic matter by 1% can improve the way soil handles water. Can
conserve water. Climate change and higher temps can bring pests and we are· .
concerned about this increasing the use of chemical pesticides. What about this?
Implementation- concerned about lack of institutional capacity, leadership, and
resources for implementation. Re-allocation of resources so that one dedicated
staff in state is looking out for ag and climate change. CAT for ag was disbanded
earlier this quarter. We want the Resources Agency collaborate with CARB to
reanimate that group and its goals.
A: Tension between amount of info required to guide government. We put more
what gov't can do to support ag rather than ag practices. The ag practices can be
found in a separate publication. Watershed stewardship and ,grant program will
hopefully expand statewide and help support agriculture. Chemicals: tension btw
amount of details and issues.
Q: reactivating interagency task force??
A: I hope it can happen. Folks that worked on that are no longer at CDFA. CDFA
is funded by general funds. Staff reductions, etc. Food and ag were hardest hit.
Linda Sheehan- CA Coastkeeper Alliance

Q: Want to support good adapt alternatives but need roadblocks against bad or
destructive adaptation alternatives. People want to help, but we need to only
take on good, environmentally safe strategies. Attention to that would be helpful.
Greater integration- Agencies working across boundaries. Where does the
integration happen?
Q: Language being timid: can and should be very strong. Non-profit community is
glad to help. Local LCPsnee'd t6 be updatEfa'to'address climate change? .
A: Scoping plan was one such effort. Doesn't integrate perfectly, but helps.
Mitigation topic has been successful, but is still hard. All resources agencies
worked together to create CAS. CAS tells how some of the big pieces can link.
We welcome comments on that.
A lot of the implementation will fall under Sequa. SEQA?
Many things have both positive AND negative benefits. Must balance those. We
want to help regional governments take action. \
45 day comment period doesn't mean that this is the end of the discussion
on adaptation.
Mapping resources for avoidance planning are available now??

This is available in state-created sea level rise assessments.
We will support a NAS study in the next year or so which would look at sea level
rise for the state of CA. These would be the official ones.
Greg San Martin- PG&E San Francisco-
Q: A: Agenda for LA meeting should be nearly the same as for this one.
Casey Creamer- CA Cotton Ginners and Growers Association:

Q: Williamson act- preserving it. Keeping ag land from being paved over....
Ag needs a steady, reliable source ofwater.
I have problems with the mitigation practices in the CAS. Ex: biofuels, water use
efficiency. Incentives ... Ag has done a lot to conserve water. Charging farmers
more for water is NOT a solution. Fertilizers- we shouldn't need to reduce
fertilizer use. We need to follow science that is concrete and not make
recommendations before the studies are completed. Input costs, business costs
going up for farmers. We want to help, but your mitigation practices are not fully
vetted.
A: Biofuels controversial for the reasons you mentioned. Innovative used of
algae etc, we wanted to include biofuels. Please help us to say it better. Water
efficiency: It's not in interest of ag productivity to use more water than necessary.
Infrastructure and delivery can be more efficient. 4-9 degree increase in temp by
end of century.
We have a summary of what we know, which is the best science in CA. Science
will change. Our recommendations show how best we can respond to these·
changes.
Mark Rentz - Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA)

Comment: Appreciative of transparency. Lots of unknowns, but we need to
address climate change. I would encourage you to take time to consider adaptive
management. Have a plan to go back and review your earlier decisions etc.
Variability in CA means we need local efforts.
ACWA perspective- have horizontal cross-sectional integration. Need vertical
integration- federal, state, local, etc.
Bigger priority on pest managemenrenc6LJraged.'··'··~·
Los Angeles Regional Collaborative for Climate Action and Sustainability
And the California Natural Resources Agency together present
California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS) Discussion Draft Public Stakeholder

Meeting
8/31/2009
Public Comments
Jim Stewart, Sierra Club
Comment: Compliments the effort put into the plan. He likes the dollar figure from the report, but is
concerned that the executive summary is weak. Only a few of the main points that are in the entire
report are in the executive summary.
The sea level rise measure of 1.4 meters is way too low. The rise is extremely optimistic. The icepacks
are melting fast.
Coastal issues -we need to stop all development at risk to the sea level rise. Maybe you will need some
legislation to help stop this. Sierra Club wants to preserve habitats an~ wild creatures and lands. They
will be looking forward to an invitation to participate in conservation related to this plan.
We need to stop factory farming that uses tons of pesticides and carbon based fertilizers. These should
be greatly reduced with organic and no-till farming.
Panelist response: The sea level number is still being determined. We are consulting with other
agencies and confirming data to insure the numbers are realistic.
Conner Everts, Southern California Watershed Alliance
Comment: We are already dealing with current adaptation. He is pleased that there are so many
agencies working together. Most of the state is not monitoring water. In Ojai we monitored and
metered our farmers. We could save 30% if people could be monitored including also multi-unit
1.:
buildings. We need to maximize local water resources by captLiring stormwater. We are behind with
capturing water blc it's dumped into the ocean. Conservation - this has to be included if we are to
really look at water in this plan. We spend so much $$ to transport water here when it would be much
cheaper and environmentally preferable to reuse more of our water. See Peter Glick's work in the bay
area. City of Santa Monica is doing a lot to put solar on buildings. Equity and environmental justice -
Maywood city can't get clean water.
Joe Heaver, California Surfrider Foundation- - --
Comment: His organization would like to help with the plan and are figuring out what area to focus on.
Mark Rouser will lead on coastal erosion. The draft report gave us a good picture of what the water
supply portfolio looks like now. The Executive Summary is lacking discrete solutions to threats to our
water supply.
We will be putting together priority areas and letting the panel know. This is a huge problem and it will
take collective energy to solve it. It is the time for collective action. It would be more successful to have
a partnership between government and private entities. He commends the efforts. Looks forward to
finding out how he can help.
Panelist Response: The strategy won't work without partners so we welcome your help.. Thank you.
Mark Rouser will lead on Coastal Erosion
We also want to make clear that the comment period is not the end of adaptation. This is building a first
step. On adaptation and mitigation - more people will begin to understand the connection between the
two.
Michael Schmidts, Director CA ICLEI
Comment: We particularly support promoting community resilience, identification of most vulnerable

communities, guidance to communities with public health issues related to climate change, increasing
emergency preparedness, and providing data to local and state agencies. We like the partnerships for
the strategy, public meetings. They are thankful for the opportunity to participate with the state on this.
Pam O'Conner, City of Santa Monica City Council Metro Board
She is very excited about this kind of work. Cities are working on 58375 plans and this strategy goes
hand in hand with this. Looking forward to working with everyone, especially on integrating land use
and transportation.
Eleanor OchovijJolie, USC student Policy and Planning
Comment: How is the whole thing financed?
Panelist Response: Good question. There is a mention about the need for funding in this document.
We are trying to promote things that we are alreadyfunding like energy efficiency. We are not sure
about financing given the state budget. The primary interest is communicating what adaptation is and
defining that. Figuring out what we can do with existing resources. We also wanted to highlight
partnerships. We laid out short and long term efforts. Short term ones seem like we can do with
existing efforts.
There is funding coming from so many areas in little amounts. We are going to try and fight for better
funding that is more consolidated.
Alice Sterling, City of Pasadena Green Coordinator:
Comment: We need to bridge the theory and the practice. We are currently working on a fixture
replacement program in Pasadena. However we are also getting feedback asking what we doing with
the old toilets. How do we deal with these issues?
Pa'rlelist Response: We are addressing those issues.
Stephanie Pensal, UCLA researcher on urban forestry
Comment: 2 projects - Regional climate action is notable b/c individual cities and counties can no
longer go it alone with efforts to forestall climate change. Beth referred to Regional Climate Action Plan.
We are working on a model to see climate change in the inland areas vs. mountains, etc. Another one is
'the pier' project with the energy commission. We are working on -a mett'lOdology' fOF'researchthat
energy flows and sinks and also relates to social dynamics. What we hope to do is make an energy
related matrix that has a more integrated understanding of dynamics. We are also involved in the use of
nature services. Hopes to work with you in developing these three areas.
The fires are an example of bad land use planning. There has been 40 years of discussing what to do.
The chickens are coming home to use. When the forest service tried to do controlled burning people
objected. We really need to be honest about the social consequences of land use better integrated and
what we allow private property owners to do.
Scott Johnson, United Teachers of Los Angeles: Created a task force to help with issues at the state
level. He teaches his science club that by the end of their lifetime there will not be oil or combustion of
natural gas. They need to carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. Very proud of what the
state is doing but disappointed by 33% by 2020. Even if we stopped today there would still be tons of
organisms who will suffer over the next 30 years. He suggests 100% by 2020. We have more offshore
wind energy than any other state. Transportation - electric cars is more of a commitment issue than a
money issue. We should set the goal of no carbon emissions.
Panelist Response: green collar jobs - for the next generation we must create an idea like that
Karen Bossen, TreePeopfe
Comment: ilike the idea of collaboration. Restoring nature in the city is a way to do this.
Ql - when we see what is going on with health reform I can only imagine that when people have a
chance to. Is there a part of the plan to help in the comrTlUrlication of these-goals? How do we deal
with people who are adamantly against this?
Think about public participation at all steps of this - growing food, organizing transportation.
Panelist Response: There is an outreach strategy but it is not fully developed. There are also issues with
funding outreach. We also tried to highlight the impact. We need to start planning. Each of the
agencies here has public involvement departments who will address this also. Go to each sector and see
what they are doing. The communication plan is not just in one document.
In working with the dept. of resources it deals with climate adaptation. This document shines a light on
a lot of other efforts that the government is already working on.
Kit Stoltz, Journalist
Comment: Did anyone here have any discussions with the governor on this? The ecosystems by San
Joaquin/delta area are broken - does the public understand this? Does your agency have
.responsibility to, make sure that the public understands that the delta is falling?,....."~"
Panelist response: No conversations with the governor from anyone here. Land conservation is the only
way that agriculture will develop here. We need infrastructure changes now. We have an active
group of stakeholders who will get information online soon. Some people are very aware like in
the bay area because they are close. Yes, because we feel obligated to educate the public.
Paul Bungi, UCLA climate change
Comment: many sections of the document. The uncertainty associated with climate change requires
that research be ongoing. Emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of climate change work. We
need to know the impacts of climate change and have a comprehensive strategy to adapt.
Beth Jines, EnvironmentLA

Comment: About the delta decline - the Mayor is very aware of this and moved to stage 3 conservation
measures (DWP water conservation ·Ievel). We had a 17% reduction in water use in July so
people understand what is going on in the delta. Where do waste management, biofuels and
trash playa part in this? We have adaptation and mitigation. Who will this all meld? Are there
action teams?
Responding to TreePeople - last Friday the mayor announced the first green hotel in LA - The
Westin Bonaventure. We managed ·to work out a certification strategy. Cost the hotel
$20,000.00. There annual return is 250,000.00.
How do we deal with you guys as a single entity?
Panelist Response: We are focusing on energy and transportation first. For waste management ifs part
ofthe waste management. In the agriculture section we touch on biofuels also. We should look
at what can be grown on lands that may not be good for food crops. If we get pushed back by
people who grow cotton or whatever - crops that could produce fuels vs. those that are for
food. T
Yes, through the climate action teams. B/c of AB32 it has mostly been focused on mitigation. It
is up to departments to work together.
Kurt is the best overall contact. Contact each sector group. We have done these rneetings so
you can meet everyone. You can contact anyone on the panel from the different agencies. Look
at www.sgc.ca.gov
Colleen Callaghan/Talon, American Lung Association
Comment: While this draft provides a lot of recommendations, what about the implementation. We'd
like to see the "should" language converted to firm cornmitments. Thinks it should be clear in
the document that the costs of inaction would outweigh the costs of not taking action. Better
actual facts on this would be helpful. We need to know the cost of climate change vs. the cost
of adaptation. We would like to also see information on the most vulnerable communities.
Panelist Response: Sept 10th we are having another meeting. See www.Climatechange.ca.gov.
Good Afternoon:
Scott Anderson of IIA of CCC
Companies certainly impacted by decisions made here
IIA wants to go on record as:
• Opposing these Amendments as being inconsistent with the

McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC's enabling legislation
We further propose that BECD:
• Cease the Bay Plan amendment process and convene a regional,

collaborative strategy to address sea level rise with federal
agencies, including FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
state agencies, local government, and other stakeholders.
,_ ~ .. Adopt a statement in,theformofa resolution which statesits.

position with regards to project review while a regional strategy is
developed
SCOTT A ANDERSON
, ---. ~" .-- Executive-Director""
[~r
~.jl -::: ~~E INOUSTRIAL ASSOCI.ATION. INC.
1 IIrIf CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
33~7 Deer Valley Road, PMB 139

AntlQch, CA 94509
925(~79.9250 FAX 925/779-9254
Email: lasaa@sbcglobal.net
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1455 MARKET ST.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94103-1398
October 7,2010
Executive Office
~AN l'iRANC~SCO DAY CONSERVATION

&, PEvELOr-MJ~N'T COMlAlSSION
Will Travis
Executive Director
Dear Mr. Travis:
This letter is a response to the public notice for the amendments to the Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) Bay Plan. First of all, we understand that BCDC, much
like the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps or USACE), has had a legal duty for
some time to carry out the mandates of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). Our
respective legal duties include, inter alia, the need to take into consideration the direct and
ind~rec~ physical ~ffectsofproje_cted future sea-level change on projects. Engineering Circ1.llar
(EC) 1165-2.-2il, dated]uly 1, 2009, instructs the Corps to consider the potential relative
sea-level change in every USACE coastal activity as far inland as the extent of estimated tidal
influence. We applaud your efforts to take on the difficult task of amending the Bay Plan to
comport with your state mandates. We are particularly supportive of the provisions that
encourage collaboration, negotiation, and public input, as provided in Findings t, u, and v on
page 14 and Policy 7 on page 18.
On the other hand, there are a few provisions that we believe could be better drafted to
allow for more flexibility~ in the face of scientific uncertainties. For example, the land use
restrictions contained in Policy 1,3,5, and 6, on pages] 5 through 17, all appear to have the
effect of severely limiting development. Risk Assessment and Adaptive Management Plans will
have to be prepared irrespective of proposed land uses, development will either not be allowed
for areas suitable for ecosystem restoration, or it will be limited to minor repairs of existing
facilities, and the regulated public will have to wait for the Regional Strategy to be prepared
before being allowed to carry out certain types of projects. If there is good science to support a
. larger project that effectively manages any potential risks, we would like to see the flexibility to
consider such a project that reasonably balances environmental protection, safety, and sustains
economic growth.
We concur with Finding c on pages 8 and 9 which acknowledges the need to use the
"best science-based sea-level rise projections." Recognizing that projections will continue to
evolve, the Corps uses ranges as our guideposts, rather than adopting a single scenario. These
2
ranges are used in a "least regrets" type analysis to identify the best investment. In many cases,
we anticipate the most prudent investment would involve phasing project construction to better
manage tight resources and respond to future environmental uncertainties. Moreover, we, along
with two other Federal agencies, are participating in the state's response to California Executive·
Order S-14-08, engaging the National Academy of Sciences to provide an updated range of
values· of global sea-level rise through the year 2100.
Your Preliminary Staff Recommendation Policy 4 states that bottom floor elevations not
only take into account future sea-level rise, but also direct that they be above a "lOO-year flood"
elevation. We would discourage arbitrary use of a "lOO-year flood" elevation and prefer a
reasoned analysis of what elevation is appropriate for the investment under consideration.
Again, we applaud BCDC' s willingness to collaborate and encourage you to spearhead a

"long-term management strategy" approach to promote collaboration, negotiation, and full public
and private sector participation. Future sea-level rise ranges should be adopted only after such
full participation takes place, with the provision that as new studies emerge the standards can and
will adapt to new credible information in a collaborative manner.
Lastly, from the Corps' regulatory perspective under § 404 of the Clean Water Act and
§ 10 of the Rivers· and Harbors Act, the Corps has not issued any· sea-level rise policy that is
applicable to our regulatory program. As such, throughout the implementation of the Bay Plan
amendments, we encourage BCDC to continue to issue consistency determinations expeditiously
to avoid any delays in the issuance of Corps permits.
We appreciate your efforts to amend the Bay Plan and the need to adhere to laws and
regulations: Ifyou-haveanycl'uestions regarding our comments on the amended Bay'Plan, please
contact our Chief of Planning Torn Kendall on (415) 503-6822 or the District Counsel Merry
Goodenough on (415) 503-6760.
Sincerely
~~---------
&Di~irO
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Commanding
EAH
October 5,2010
SAN FRANClS(,;() BAY. CUNSERYf,!ION
& DEYBLOPMENT COM]\,I11SS10N
R. Sean Randolph, Chair Will Travis, Executive Director

EAH Housing is a leading nonprofit developer and manager of affordable

housing in the Bay Area and throughout California and Hawaii. We just
recently learned of the proposed Bay Plan amendment on climate change before
your commission this Thursday. We ask that you postpone decisions
concerning the recommendations until they can be reviewed fully by all
stakeholders and a genuine regional discussion can take place on how best to
deal with predicted sea level rise.
We at EAH Housing are very concerned. Based on our intitial review, our
main concern is that the proposed Bay Plan amendments are at odds with other
social, economic and environmental goals and will make it harder to build
h~m~s ~or workingJamilies close to job centers and to protect low-income.
neighborhoods fl.-om rising sea levels.
We have found no evidence that the mission of nonprofit affordable housing

developers such as EAH Housing and the interests of our residents and the
thousands of others who have been priced out of the Bay Area housing market
have been seriously taken into account in the drafting of the proposed
amendment. We strongly believe these amendments could dramatically affect
our and other affording housing developers' ability to supply sustainable
transit-oriented affordable housing.
The new policies would cover 213,000 acres, including 40 locations

(accounting for 60 percent of the land) in' Bay Area designated by regional
planners as Priority Development Areas (PDA) due to proximity to transit and
job centers. As you know, transit-oriented infill is the most efficient,
responsible way to address increased housing needs in the Bay Area. The
unintended consequence of these well-meaning amendments would be to
• Creating communit), b), developing, managing and promoting qualit), affirdable housing since 1968
Suite B
San Rafael California 94901-5531
415/258-1800 • 415/453-4927
Mr. Sean Randolph and Mr. Will Travis
October 5, 2010
Page 2
increase greenhouse gas production by Bay Area residents due to longer

commutes and more driving.
Again, we ask that you table a vote on the proposed amendments until all Bay
Area stakeholders have had an opportunity to review, comment on and
recommend changes.
Sincerely,
~~
Mary Murtagh
Executive Director
CC:
The Hon. John Gioia, commissioner and Contra Costa County supervisor
The Hon.Charles McGlashan, commissioner and Marin County supervisor
The Hon.Susan Adams~ comnlission alternate and Marin County supervisor
The HonJoan Lundstrom, commissioner and Larkspur mayor
'.,. . ,..•..
• Creating community by developing, managing and promoting quality affordable housing since 1368
Suite B
San Rafael CalifOrnia 94901-5531
415/258-1800 ·415/453-4927
00T-07-10 THU 03:15 PM BASIN STREET PROPERTIES FAX NO. 7077956283 P, 01
.
4
BASIN5TREET
!-:.~ \~ (('" r~ \l ~ f7 ~~n
I\D) .G, <:,,:1 I,C:, II \VjcJl~I"~~i1}. 35 yeats
1! TIE: S
'1', l. Ill'? i'~~ . ,~·I~"

Iu 7\17 i'~S . r,!.11 \ \ .~ \
'0 ..... 1J.7.!.1/2.00?
I,. \, ~J(Y!~."7
'vi I
7010'
- •
.
• ~." , ••••• , , _ _ _. _ . _ . _ . ,_ 0 _
_ _ •••• _ _ •••••__. _•• •••• _ •••••• ••• _ ••••_ _. _ • • • •_ _ _ u ,•• ~ , •••, ." .
.• 0\'('''(00\') ""v CIf)NSERVATlON

,.1f\N rKfI. \i\...l,~ , . ,.>nl ,'\0 "-
OGl()b~r 7, 20T 0 \to •te.. DEVELOPh1E..NT COMlvllSSlON
R. Scan Rnndolph WIll Travis

Chair Exccutive Director
BAY CONSERVATION AND BAY CONSERVATJON AND
DEVELOllMENT COMMISSION DEVELOPMEN'l' COMMISSION
clo I1l'1y t\rca Cl~tmci[ 50 California Strect, Suite 2600
201 Calif(.)\'l1ia S1l'cet, Sllit(~ 1450 San Francisco, California 94111
San ]'<\·anci~lr.;o~ CA 9·t 111
RE: OCT01H<:R 7 IIfi:AH.ING ON BAY l' LAN AM EN OIVllCNTS
Dcft/" CIHlir Randolph and Exec~ltlvc Director Tn:wis,
We wril~ to express our concern regarding October 7 hcnring on proposed climatechangc

amendi'nents to the I3.ny PInn. Allh'bugh the Stall Rcporl states lhat the Commission and staff have been
cOl1siul.lrillg lhese amendments since May 2009, we only reccntly learned the proposed amondments were
pel1d il18o.
Among other things, the following ~lspects concern us as to unintended, a.dvel'se economic and
employment eOllSl,;qllenccs;
o Tho proposed amendments continue to stress "di!)cOllraging" new development in

«developed shoreline at-cas.?' This appt'6i\ch alicnates new projects, privato capital, and
innovation that can be part ofa r<:lgional solution to meoting the challenge ofprcdictcd
sea-level dse and paying [or unfunded rest.oration projects.
o 'l'he Plan wOilJd limit development within Planned Development Areas (PDAs) -- the
nrons id~nlified nii most Sllililble [Or increased density by the Association of Bay Area
GoYcrnments' FOCUS planning process -- including! among others, PDAii in Vallejo,
S~\n Rafael, Richmond, Redwood City, Milpitas, SUnIiyvnle and Santa Clara.
o The Plan would move a.(rord~lble housing opporiunities farther away from job centers and
existing tmnsit inCrastruclul'e, increasing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), worsenIng traffic
conge~i1orl <lnd nil' qua.lity, and having a disproportionate adverse effect on low-income
find minority communities and other vulnerable populations, and increasing greenhouse
gas emissions.
o Tfle: Plan would limit cflpital investment (e.g., caused by the threat ofrcloca1.ion,
illcn:\ased restrictions On development, decisions not to protect ndghborhoods from
U83 N. hld)"v.cll !\Jvd., Stilt" 200

l\'j'(\)umn, C,\ 9~954
WWW·IlI\SIN-SJ !O:<1'·COM
OCT-07-10 THU 03:15 PM BASIN STREET PROPERTIES FAX NO, 7077956283 P. 02
!
Chair Randolph BASINSTREET
Executive Director Travis PROPERTIES
CktobGl' 7, 2010
Page 2
flooding l'lnd lnulldfition) loading to community disinvestment andpllght,

disproportionatelY affecting 10w-in~~omQ and miMrity communities.
One aspect of tho stnff report even goes so far as to enco urage the usc of eminent dOmain to carry
out its o b j e c t i v e s . -
Fill~~Jly, given thc Sta r1" Report's OWn account as to the breadth of the consequence of the
propo:ltJd all1Gndmenls (i,e., $62 billion in exisTing shoroline d~velopl11ent, 270,000 people, and 213,000
~Icrcs), we qllcs1iol1 sl'nfrs cOI\clusion that such sweeping polic1cs will have no significant impapts worthy
of full cOl\siderMion under CEQA via 311 cnyironrne\ltal impact repmi. What will bc the impact on
existing shol"t:'linc commuIlili<:s and infrastructure? As to tho amendmcnts' directive to "preclude" and
"discollrn~~e" dovelopment, what an.' the implications for sorely needed housing - especkllly afTordable
housing projects - in cxistlngjob centers? With the intent of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
cspi,1cially Yt~hicle-gencrated omission'3, flrc W~ potentially pushing employee commutes further and
further nw{\y f)'om their jobs andlhereby increasing emissions contributing Lo sea level rise?
It ,vould seem ~\ much marc comprehensive and robust discussion and analysis arc appropriate in
c.ol1sidcring the implkallolls ofs0tllevel rise. Such a process must involve representative's ofthc
numerous It')calllgcnclc1; oro\lnd tho Day potentially implicated by the proposed amendmenls, as well as
the existing agencies Wilh substantive expertise on this issue of flood risk.
We <lpprcciatc the cOncern over sea level rise and ensuring that the entire Bay area has a
proactive, strategic approach to address it. I'he current proposal, however, provides little protective and
pfO[lctivc policy, and Seems to have extreme disadvantageous consequenoes for the economic vitality and
()fthc U;:ty. We ask tl1<1t you not proceed flHiher on October 7 and, instead, convene a comprehensive
:- .•"7'~-~." wc)rkill g group cif stakeholders to address the lSS{JC ,·- ~- :-,.'..' .. ~-
PAUL ANI,)IWNICO
SENIOI( VICE PRf-}SIDENT
BASIN STIU~E'I' Pl(()I'ERTHo:S
A
II
PASSIO N FOR GREAT PLACES
October 7, 2010 GPJ'-j FRbJIlUSUJ pf~l CONSERV.KflON

& DEVELfJPMJ3NT COi\1f·;llSSlON

BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Re: Preliminary Recommendation for Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08

Concerning Climate Change ("Proposed Amendments")
We commend the Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("BCDC").

staff's efforts to highlight the issue and potential consequences of.sea level rise for the
San Francisco Bay region. However, we are concerned that, in the main, the Proposed
Amendments effectively recommend retreat and reject strategies to allow for the infill
growth that will be essential to meeting the region's shared environmental and economic
goals. In our belief, these goals are essential in the future for the Bay Area to remain the
extraordinary place that residents and admirers worldwide have grown to know and
expect.
DMB Pacific, LLC, a division of DMB Associates, Inc. ("DMB"), specializes in

extraordinary land use and conservation programs and communities throughout the
western United States. Governor Schwarzenegger's recent recognition of DMB via his
Environmental and Economic Leadership Award is only the most recent testament to
DMB's decades-long commitment to legacy accomplishments in both community
building and conservation successes. It is with this demonstrated ethic that DMB has
engaged with the Bay region, at our Redwood City Saltworks project, as well as in
numerous other Bay area opportunities under consideration. Proactively addressing the
issue of climate change - both in terms of causes (Le., reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions) and consequences (Le., sea level rise) - remains a top priority for us.
Our concern with the substance of the Proposed Amendments is that they
establish a disincentive for proactive private sector engagement and provision of
resources (financial, technological, and logistical) to assist the public sector in mounting
a solution-oriented response to the threats posed by sea level rise projections. The
Proposed Amendments focus on concepts such as "preclude" and "discourage" (see
Staff Report and Revised Preliminary Recommendation for Proposed Bay Amendment
1-08 Concerning Climate Change, September 3, 2010 ["Staff Report"], pg. 9, Finding e;
OMS PACIFIC, LLC - 18800 VON KARMAN AVENUE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
October 7,2010
Page 2
pg. 12, Finding 0) as opposed to thoughtful consideration of the benefits and resources
that may be contributed by the public and private landowners within the projected
inundation zone to support a region-wide strategy to address existing vulnerabilities.
We are concerned that one factor contributing to this predisposition toward

abandoning the shoreline is the lack of participation of agencies with established
authority and expertise in the area of flood risks and existing landowning stakeholders.
Cities, counties, flood control districts, and numerous other agencies at all jurisdictional
levels have existing experience, regulatory regimes, and resources regarding flood risks
posed by current day situations and projections for future vulnerability. Further, private
landowners, industrial users, and governmental agencies have interests and
perspectives on regulations proscribing future uses of their land. It appears from the
administrative record that there has been little or no substantive engagement with such
agencies or landowners.
Additionally, the Proposed Amendments envision a regional plan on sea level

rise to be adopted at some undetermined point in the future by the constituent-agencies
of the Joint Policy Committee. (Staff Report, pg. 16, Policy 5.) We point out, however,
that even those agencies - BCDC, Bay Area Air Quality Management District,
Association of Bay Area Government, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
- lack direct experience and authority over flood control issues and structural protective
measures such as levees. This leads us to question when, if ever, such a regional plan
may ever materialize and whether the necessary stakeholder entities will be brought to
the table in its formulation.
The path forward, we respectfully SUbmit, is a comprehensive, collaborative, and

transparent process including representatives of each stakeholder group -local
government, flood control districts, state and federal agencies, non-government resource
groups, the regulated community, landowners and others. The purpose of this process
should be to create parameters for projects proposed within the inundation zone,
regardless of originating entity or ownership, to present both the benefits and
vulnerabilities of their proposal to the appropriate regulatory body with jurisdiction over
that area. That scrutiny and its outcomes should all be in the context of a proactive,
regional strategy to address this issue in a coordinated fashion by agencies with the
authority to require and enforce the appropriate outcome.
As a committed stakeholder to the near- and long-term comprehensive health

and vitality of the Bay area, we appreciate and welcome the opportunity to be a
collaborative partner in addressing this issue. Where the potential threats are this
complex, the path to successful solutions may be equally complex. To that end, we ask
that the Commission playa leadership role in ensuring all appropriate entities come to
the table to build on the work done to date. A fresh integration of the resources and
expertise of the absent agencies and other stakeholders must commence in order to
DMS PACIFIC, LLC - 18800 VON KARMAN AVENUE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
October 7, 2010
Page 3
begin crafting a comprehensive and proactive strategy to leverage all available

resources, innovation, and opportunities.
...
David C. Sml
Vice President, Regulatory Entitlements Counsel
DMB PACIFIC, LLC
DMB PACIFIC, LLC - 18800 VON KARMAN AVENUE, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92612
I~ fE ([~ IE II \11 fE f[J
1.0
Genentech OCT -7 2010
. SfJ\J FRANCISC(I i~j\Y CONSERVATION
AIvIember of the Roche Group & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Stan Moy
October 5, 2010
Dear Mr. Moy:
Commission (BCDC) on October 7, 2010. The proposed Amendments would establish new and
orierousrestrictionson development and impact land use planning dedsions well outside BCDC's
jurisdiction. To avoid far reaching adverse impacts to the San Francisco Bay region,
promise of biotechnology for more than 30 years, using human genetic information to discover; ....
develop, manufacture and commercialize medicines for patients with serious or life-threatening
medical conditions. Today, Genentech has multiple products on the market and many promising
projects in the pipeline. With approximately 13,000 regular full-time employees, Genentech has
been consistently recognized as one of the top places to work in the United States. In March
San Francisco site now serves as the headquarters for· Roche pharmaceutical operations in the
United States.
industry and its employees located on the San Francisco Peninsula, where BCDC staff anticipates
substantial Bay inundation.
plan that would, among other things, "determine where existing development should be protected
and infill development encouraged, where new development should be permitted, [and] where
inundation zones until the adaptation plan is in place, the Amendments will have an immediate
effect on growth and capital investment.
This conflict would have severe consequences. Because the California Environmental Quality
the affects of sea level rise, but the affects of the proposed plan itself. We are equally concerned
: • ..1
adverse environmental impacts." . . . .. ..'
necessary analysis to understand and appropriately mitigate the Amendments' environmental and
• r.. '''''"'''..• ~
Sincerely,
Todd Kaufman
Senior Director
cc: . Members, BCDC

Will Travis, BCDC
f?d ~(c~D\(#~ [Q)
Genentech DCT - 7 2010
SAN B<ANCISC0 UJ:"Y CONSERVATION
AMember of the Roche Group & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Jim McGrath
50 California Street, 26th Floor
October 5, 2010
RE: Opposition to Proposed BCnC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change
Dear Mr. McGrath:
onerous restrictions on devci10pment and impact land use ·planning decisions well outside BcDC's
jurisdiction. To avoid fat reaching adverse impacts to the San Francisco Bay region,
. ptOinise of biotechnology for more than 30 years,llsing human genetic informatibh" tcr discbver,
San Francisco site now serves as the headquaIierS for Roche pharmaceutical operations in the
United States.
and regional plans and create substantial new litigation risk forBay shore and other projects. The
effect on growth and capital investment.
adverse environmental impacts." ..
Sincerely,
Todd Kaufman
Senior Director
cc: Members, BCDC

Will Travis, BCDC
Jim Wundennan, Bay Area Council
Genentech
AMember of the Roche Group SAN FRANCISCO EA.'! CONSERVATION
Larry Goldzband
50 California Street, 26th Floor
October 5,2010
Dear Mr..Goldzband:
I;',
Commission (BCDC) on October 7, 2010. The proposed Amendments would establish new and
'onerousrestrictions on development and impact landuse plarming decisions well outside BCDC's
. 'promise of biotechnology for mote than 30 years,-using'human genettc information to discover,
San Francisco site now serves as the headquarters for Roche pharmaceutical operations in the
United States.
While we support climate change planning, the restrIctlVe and open-ended language of the
effect on growth and capital investment. .
adverse environmental impacts."
economic effects. We would be pleased to participate in this effOlt; however, Genentech firmly
Sincerely,
Todd Kaufman
Senior Director
cc: Members, BCDC

Will Travis, BCDC
(,o) [~(C r~."n\\1"~:=J
IfU ~ U:!J
~O)I
Genentech OCT - 7 2010 .
AMember of the Roche Group SAN ~1<:'-\NCl:'>CU MY CONSERVA.TION
Anne Halsted
50 California Street}
26th Floor
San Francisco} CA 94111
October 5, 2010
Dear Mrs. Halsted:
onerous restrictions on development and impact land use planning decisions well outside BCDC's
proMise of biotechnology for more than 30 years, using human genetic information 'to disCover,'
San Francisco site now serves as the headquarters for Roche pharmaceutical operations in the
United States.
plan that would, among other things, "detennine where existing development should be protected
effect on growth and capital investment.' .
a thorough environmental and economic analysis.' Such an analysis should incorporate not just
adverse environmental impacts." .
We, therefore, urge that the Commission defer consIderation of the proposed Climate Change
economic effects. We would be pleased to participate in this effort; however, Genentech firmiy
Sincerely,
Todd Kaufman
Senior Director
cc: Members, BCDC

Will Travis, BCDC
CITY OF OAKLAND
oALZI EL BU I Lol NG • 250 FRAN I< H. OGAWA PLAZA, SU ITE 3315 • OAKLAN 0, CALI FORN IA 94612
Community and Economic Development Agency (510) 238-3941

Office of the Executive Director FAX (510) 238-2226
TOO (510) 238-3254
October 7,2010 NOISSTWWOJ J.NBVild01BA3.G 11?

N01.LVA~3.SNOJ ,\'In OJSl:1NV&l. t-TVS
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissioners

Joseph La Clair, ChiefPlalmer
50 Califomia Street, Suite 2600
RE: Proposed Amendments to the BCnC Bay Plan Findings and Policies
Dear Commissioners,
The City of Oakland understands the need for a comprehensive policy and action plan to address future
sea level "rise as a result of climate change and commends BCDC for considering am"endmellts to'the
Bay Plan to address these very real projected impacts. We are just staliing to understand the possible
implications of this enonnous and complex issue, and how it will affect the economics, safety, and
enjoyment of the shoreline around San Francisco Bay, paliiculal-ly in Oaklalld. Although this effort
~ apparently begall in eamest some time ago, Oakland City staff only recently becalne aware of the
proposed changes to the Bay Plan. Therefore, we request that the October 7, 2010 public hearing be
postponed or continued until we can further evaluate the proposed changes on existing, approved, and
potential futute developmeIifin Oakland. "
The City is paliicularIy concemed that some of the definitions and proposed policies appear vague and
could establish onerous requirements that may thwali critical redevelopment along Oaklalld's shoreline.
The City's preliminary comments and concems are outlined below. As responsible jurisdictions, we
must begin to coordinate with each other to develop strategies based on sound scientific data and
sustainable principles, while recognizing the need to encourage economic development in areas, such as
Oakland, that will accOlmnodate infill development and foster reductions in vehicle miles travelled and
greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Oakland also has a responsibility to our City and the region to
grow, on an infill basis, our economy, specifically renewal of the Oakland Anny Base. The rules to
enable us to accomplish that missionll1ust be simultaneously cleal' and flexible so that the private sector
can rely on the City's ability to review and approve appropriate development.
As noted in the September 3,2010 staffreport, climate change will affect all of the Bay Area. Per
BCDC's published maps, a significant number of propeliies within the City of Oakland's jurisdiction as
well as important infrastructure are projected to be vulnerable to rising sea levels.
BCDC: Proposed Amendments to the Bay Plan Page 2
1. We would like BCDC to clarify and expressly confirnl that it is not proposing an expansion of its
existing jurisdiction as defined in the "Area of Jurisdiction" to include the mid-level, 100 year future
shoreline proj ections or any other areas not cUlTently within the Area of Jurisdiction definition. We
would like BCDC also to clarify and expressly confinn that its area ofjurisdiction will not be a
"moving target" as sea levels rise, and that any changes contemplated to the "Area of Jurisdiction"
will occur with adequate advanced notice and opportunity to comment, particularly will allow for
direct, substantive input from the affected jurisdictions. Furthermore, we would like the Bay Plan to
be amended to specifically reference a dated map with the existing shoreline and BCDC's 100'
landward jurisdiction clearly delineated.
2. Climate Change Finding "p" defines "infill development" as it is referenced throughout the Plan.
The City of Oakland commends BCDC for recognizing that infill development is an important
strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and development on greenfield areas by locating
housing and businesses near existing infrastmcture. However, the City of Oakland believes that this
definition is too vague and needs fmiher clarification. As an infill city, we are especially concerned
with this definition and its potential implications in directing development to certain areas. Among
other things, we are concerned that vague definitions or undercertain, overexpansive regulations
could discourage investment necessary to encourage development in tme infill areas. Fmihernlore,
as the City of Oakland's General Plan encourages development, as well as public access and
conservation along the shoreline, clear language defining what is "infill development," and what is
not is an absolute necessity. For example, is infill development defined in a similar malmer as in the
state CEQAguidelines? Does it refer to development projects that are onlysulToUlided by existing
development? Does it include expanding development that cUlTently exists? The City of Oakland
would recOlmnend amending the Bay Plall with a Definitions section.
3. Climate Change Finding "r"outlines possible methods to minimize development from the risk of
flooding in low-lying areas. The City of Oakland recognizes that there is not a "one size fits all"
approach to addressing this issue. The City of Oakland is concerned that the amendments to the Plan
imply that only the options explicitly stated are effective in addressing the risk. We wOlild like the
Plan to acknowledge other possible options and add the language "including but not limited to" to
this section.
4. Climate Change Findings "t" and "u" and Policy "5" ac1mowledge the need to work collaboratively
with local state, local, and federal jurisdictions to address climate change and rising sea levels. The
City of Oakland would like the Bay Plall to be amended so it is clearly stated that BCDC must work
with local jurisdictions in this regard, and that the effects of adaption and protection that one
jurisdiction implements could have detrimental effects for neighboring jurisdictions.
5. Climate Change Finding "v" discusses BCDC's existing regulatory authority. The City of Oakland
would like BCDC to clearly confinn that the proposed findings and policies do not extend to
development outside ofBCDC's "Area of Jurisdiction." Fmihennore, we would like this section to
be amended to clearly state that the findings and policies in areas outside the "Area of Jurisdiction"
are only advisory.
BCDC: Proposed Amendments to the Bay Plan Page 3
6. We are concemed that Climate Change Policies "2 and 6" require celiain developments to be
designed to be resilient to sea level rise, and for developments of longer duration to also develop an
adaptive management plan, without providing clear guidelines for what such a plan will require. This .
section also states that "infill projects within existing urbanized areas that likely will be protected
whether or not the infill takes place" would not have to be designed in such manner. Again, the City
of Oakland believes that infill development needs to be more clearly defined. Furthemlore, the Plan
should also be amended to clarify what is meant by the statement "will likely be protected" as this
has serious implications and may be subject to unlimited interpretation.
7. We are pariicularly concemed that Climate Change Policy "6" proposes a viliual moratorium on
development in areas "vulnerable to future shoreline flooding," regardless of the risk of flooding or
the possibility ofiml0vative adaptive measures that would mitigate projected sea level rise.
Although Policy "6" proposes some exceptions to this restriction, the exceptions are ill-defined. For
example, the Policy purports to exclude certain types of infill development ifthat development will
be protected in the future. However as noted above, the definition of areas likely to be protected is
unclear. As another example "redevelopment projects" are exempt; however, redevelopment
generally assumes that development has already occUlTed. Therefore, why would the sea level rise
analysis requirements differ between redevelopment projects and infill development? We are also
concemed that the requirements for redevelopment projects including the risk assessment, adaptive
management plan, and a pennanent financial strategy to protect the public from sea level rise are too
vague. The Plan should include very specific language for what is expected from such analysis and
strategies. In sum, without clear definitioil and requirements, we are very concemed that this Policy
could severely iInpair the City's ability to redevelop its shoreline areas with viable, produCtive uses.
8. It is the City of Oakland's Ullderstanding, based on discussions with BCDC staff, that there is no
consideration given to projects that have already been approved by the local govemment and
certified under CEQA, but have not received approval or pennits from BCDC. Specifically, the City
of Oakland is concemed that these projects would have to be significantly revised and re-evaluated
under CEQA in order to obtain BCDC pemlits should the Plan be amended. The City of Oakland is
especiallycoilcemed 'as ·one of these projects is avoter approved and Junded infrastructure project:
Given the current economic climate and the cost to revise a project and undergo additional
environmental review, the City of Oakland believes that the Bay Plan should include language to
clearly exempt these proj ects from the proposed findings and policies.
Again, the City of Oakland kindly requests that the October 7, 20 I0 public hearing be postponed or
continued until we can fUliher evaluate the proposed changes on existing, approved, and future
development in Oakland. If given additional time, City staff would provide specific language that we
believe would address our concems regarding the proposed changes. We look forward to working with
you to develop a comprehensive plan that begins to address this impOliant challenge and we thank the·
Commission for the opportunity to COlllillent.
ti\~e~y~ J,
~en,Director
Community and Economic Development Agency
CITYOF ~
SAN]OSE Office of the. City Attorney
CAPITAL OF SILICON VAllEY RICHARD DOYLE, CITY ATIORNEY
Sent via electronic transmittal to: joel@bcdc.ca.gov

[Followed by regular U. S. mail delivery]
October 7,2010 ~re~~~~~[D)

.. OCT 11 2010 .~
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
50 California Street, Suite 2600 . &DBVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Attention: Joe LaClair
The City of San Jose remains a demonstrated leader in its commitment to

thoughtful and strategic land use planning on climate change issues, as evidenced by our
Council-adopted Green Vision and other efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
protect our natural resources, and locate new development in the right places (particularly
concentrated near transit stations). Presently, the City of San Jose is in the process of
placing the finishing touches on a proposed, community-based, comprehensive general
plan update, Envision San Jose 2040, which includes goals and strategies that address
sustainability and climate change issues. After recent participation in a natiohal workshop
on climate change adaptation, City of San Jose staff is proposing to strengthen this
Envision Plan by recommending the addition of adaptation strategies for climate change
and sea level rise. San Jose will continue to be a leader in addr,essing these issues, as
200 East Santa Clara Street, 16th Floor Tower, San Jose, CA 95113-1905 tel (408) 535-1900 fax (408) 998-3131
Re: Item 10 on 10/7 Commission Agenda - .
Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08
October 7,2010
Page 2
well as being a critical partner with other local and regional planning agencies in
responsibly developing policies and other guidance that considers and accounts for these
climate change issues, including those that impact our San Francisco Bay. Towards that
end, we request that you drop or defer your consideration of this item until active
collaboration and consultation has occurred with other responsible local governments,
such as the City of San Jose, who care deeply about and are giving great attention to
these same concerns.
Such a drop or deferral action also appears warranted at this stage because BCDC
staff expressly acknowledges in their reports to the Commission that much of the
substance of the Amendment is beyond BCDC's existing authority to enact, impose or
implement and that legislative authorization to expand the scope of BCDC's jurisdiction is
first needed. We appreciate staff's candor about this issue and recommend to the
Commission that a more in-depth examination of the necessity and efficacy of the
proposed Amendment first be completed with impacted stakeholders before further
expenditure of Commission resources, time and funds is consumed.
Please note that uniquely localized land use decisions have always been and are
best kept within the purview of local jurisdictions who work on those issues constantly and
consistently and who possess the most current and intricate knowledge of the'ir particulars
as well as their local context. After further collaboration and discussion, it maybe that all
parties realize that the proposed Amendment is not necessary because local jurisdictions,
such as the City of San Jose, already are mandated by state laws to evaluate, and do in
fact evaluate, the potential climate change issues described in the proposed Amendment
such that the Amendment duplicates analyses and efforts already being performed by
other entities. In any event, any proposed plan amendment on this topic should be crafted
a
." . With the active 'participation of other affected jurisdictions and in manner that .,
acknowledges, respects and provides due deference to the importance of reserving cities'
traditional land use controls.
Please also note that the City of San Jose is well-versed and immersed daily in
administering the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
("CEQA") and is well-equipped to fully analyze the environmental impacts of climate
change on any policies or projects impacting our local jurisdiction, including areas near the
San Francisco Bay. While the Commission's staff report on this item briefly notes that no
environmental impact report was prepared or completed because the Commission's
regulations have been certified by the California Secretary of Resources as "functionally
equivalent" to CEQA, this statement is inconsistent with staff's own admission that much of
the substance of the Amendment actually falls outside of the Commission's existing
jurisdiction and regulations. For this reason, an EIR would be required in this instance and
none was prepared. Additionally, even certified regulatory programs still are required
under CEQA to consult with all public agencies with jurisdiction over a project. The
proposed Amendment impacts land use actions located in the City of San Jose and yet no
Re: Item 10 on 10n Commission Agenda-
Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08
October 7, 2010
Page 3
required consultation occurred on these issues with the City of San Jose. This lack of
consultation does not comport with the requirements of CEQA.
Thank you in advance for your attention to and consideration of the City of San
Jose's concerns and comments on the proposed Bay Plan Amendment. The City of San
Jose remains interested in thoughtfully and proactively working with all interested parties
and jurisdictions on these very important issues. We would like to invite you and/or your
staff to the South Bay area to discuss the proposed Bay Plan Amendment, as it appears
your staff had similar meetings with other groups earlier this calendar year. We would be
happy to host this meeting and invite other South Bay cities in order to respect your time.
You may contact Joseph Horwedel or Laurel Prevetti, Director and Assistant Director,
respectively, of the City's Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement to
pursue such a meeting. Thank you again for your time.
. . ~_v.ery. truly yours,

(---7 .
cc: Mayor and City Council, City of San Jose

, Debra Figone, City Manager
GAVIN NEWSOM, Mayor
[S[E]
San Francisco
Redevelopment Agency
.Rick Swig, President
Darshan Singh, Vice President
Miguel M. Bustos
One South Van Ness Avenue
- .. ·J. '\l·.·
[•. Lc··.··
Francee Covington
r~~·
San Francisco, CA 94103 , - I; ;
Leroy King
Fred Biackwell, Executive Director

415.749.2400
Octqber 7, 2010
101-00910-008
VIA EMAIL
f?J IE rc IE rJ ~ IE IL);
irJ)
OCT 11 2010 L::./
SAN FRANCl,SCO
& DEVEr. BAY CONSERVATION
OPMENT COMMIsSION
joel(a),bcdc.ca.gov
Joe LaClair
Chief Planner
Re: Proposed Bay Plan,Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change
Dear Mr. LaClair:
On behalf of the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency, I am writing to express our deep
COl).cern wit1J.Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning ClimateChange (Amengments).
The Amendments appear to substantially conflict with existing Redevelopment Agency plans .
and policies and could potentially have a significant adverse affect on our projects. While we
support BCDC's efforts to address the issue of global warming and sea level rise, we ask that the
COlmnission withdraw the proposed Amendments and work with affected stakeholders,
including the Redevelopment Agency and other City departments, to develop a climate change
plan that protects public safety and enhances the vitality of our communities. '
The Redevelopment Agency is undertaking a number of large-scale proj ects that will result in
critically important economic and social benefits for the City and the region. These projects will
create new affordable housing, green space, commercial and educational centers and high-quality
jobs. Many of these projects will become subject to the Amendments' restrictions. Yet, the
Amendments' implications on these projects, which appear to be significant, have not been
considered and appropriate coordination with the City and County of San Francisco has not
occurred. '
Joe LeClair
October 7,2010
Page 2
The San Francisco Redevelopment Agency urges the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission to defer consideration of the proposed Amendments until staffi1as analyzed the
impacts of its proposal and coordinated with affected municipalities, agencies, members of the·
public and land owners. We further urge that the Amendments be revised based on this analysis
and outreach. We would be pleased to participate in this process.
Sincerely,
Fred Blackwell
Executive Director

Jim Chappell, SPUR, BCDC Commissioner
David Chiu, City and County of San Francisco, BCDC Commissioner
Sophie Maxwell, BCDC Commissioner
Sanjay M. Ranchod, Esq., BCDC Commissioner
Jennifer Entine Matz, Director, San Francisco Office of Economic and Workforce
Developmenf
I- '
Mayor Jeff Ira City Hall
Vice Mayor Alicia C. Aguirre
Council Members
Ian Bain
Redwood
-11V Dolifornla
1017 Middlefield Road
Redwood City, CA 94063
Voice: (650) 780-7220
Rosanne S. Foust
Jeffrey Gee
O foundod 1881 fax: (650) 261-9102
mail@redwoodcity.org
~
Barbara Pierce . .,~' ' , www.redwoodcity.org
John Seybert
October 6, 2010
. Members, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission I~ ~ IS' n\\!l ~ .=.,
{;=))u·-
!t11
t~.... •
IrJ
c = \\:::? Lt;, 11 'W iJ~
L....-'
OCT 11 2010 "--.-I

Subject: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment
SAN ~J\fClSCO BAY CONSER.VATIO
&. .v1:;', VELOP.M..E.NT COMMISSION .
On behalf of the community of RedwooefCity, we are writing to strongly urge the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) not to consider adopting Bay Plan
Amendment 1-08 regarding climate change at your October 7,2010, meeting. We believe that
until the proposed regulations and their implications are more fully studied by all the local
jurisdictions that will be impacted, and all stakeholders are more thoroughly engaged in the
process, it is not reasonable to consider adoption of the proposed Amendment.
The proposed Amendment as written contains vague language, undefined prohibitions and
mandates, unclear authority for application of ambiguous standards, and potential exposure of
cities to litigation over disputes ofinterpretation and consistency with local land use decision
making. Further, it appears that much of the scope described in the Amendment is well outside
BCDC's existing geographic and policy jurisdiction. .
For these reasons, we believe it is premature for BCDC to take action on the proposed
Amendment; and in fact we have serious reservations, along with other cities, about the overall
approach and need for this new level of regulation..
It's also of great concern to us that the proposed Bay Plan Amendment has not been sufficiently
vetted among the many local jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area that will be greatly affected.
The proposed Amendment will impose significant policy changes that would have dramatic
impacts on local governments, yet the process used does not appear to have fUlly and directly
engaged local governments.
October 6, 2010
Members, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Page - 2-
We are aware that public hearings and workshops on the Amendment were held in 2008 and
2009, but what remains unclear is the level of direct outreach to local governments and other
stakeholders. I'm sure you'll agree that changes of this magnitude must cooperatively and
transparently involve all stakeholders, including local agencies that currently exercise regulatory
control over the potentially affected areas.
Rather than a de facto moratorium, any policies implemented should allow for innovation in land
use planning and geo-engineering, providing the opportunity for such proposals to be presented
and justified. Essential maintenance of flood protection structures should be assured. Clearly,
local government and its flood control districts which are making flood plain construction and
management decisions have the critical role and must be deeply involved with any policy
development around thes.e issues. We don't believe that has been the case.
Through this letter, Redwood City formally requests that BCDC not take any action on the
proposed Bay Plan Amendment at their October 7,2010, meeting. We further request that the
proposed Amendment be shelved, and that BCDC undertake a comprehensive, collaborative,
and transparent process so that any proposed policy changes are brought to the local agencies
and the public for a full opportunity to review and submit formal comments .
,~
pe~ngram
.
City Manager
.~ ....
c: Members, City Council of Redwood City

Santa Clara
Planning Division
_.ed
iijjr
2001
October 6, 2010
IR1 IE «; IE ~ WIE i[J
OCT 1 1 2010 to
o
~=~O BAY CONSERVATION
San Francisco Bay and Conservation and Development Commission PMENTCOMM!SSION
LL
50.Califomia Street, Suite 2600
..... San Francisco CA 94111
"Wi~~:a""'···\"~:·en::p::~:~::;=X!~~;:sC~:ncenllng Climate ChIDlge

,'ii' Dear _commis~ioiiers a~dPi~,ect~}Ti~V\~;yi
! ""'" (:'{ii",',!",'"
The9ty of Santa Clara has 'reyiew~~the, S~,pt~l1:lber 3, 2010 staff report regarding revised
pr~lip:iin,ary recommendations for th.e propos~<:l Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Conceming Climate
C;g~ng~~~ln addition, we have re~i~wed mateil~lsayailable on the BCDC website regarding tl~e
C;i.li1:eIit,'a~d.proposed
I':'! ir-'(i ' .
plans, includihg''thr(fetail~dfable
;-:';,,1-~! ~,,~:\ ' ..
of findings and staff analysis on the Plan "-'J" "',.;'\ 'I
;anlendriients.
! ~ ., '. - :~. ,(~;<
'''j- \, ,," """j ';;,
'\;{;;ih:
'
t <",,,.,<:,"'...'
, : . c<'''',c;,,;p:o''''-''''<i;,;:;).::,. fc," \ • ,"'::,.. .,.' .

"""-,-The City9fSantaCla;ra,appr~p~~tes the,gQqls al'ld,p~sponsibilities of the Commission in
:,.",:!;;.""7::grq::r:>'S\~':protecting our Bay as :a~cvital.regOJ"lrce fdr ~llofusi:While most among us share the concems of
",,1",;:,:,::~'~;:::'>~-.)" '. :.~> i" 'r" ".:.~ -;!, :~.~ -: .r,"!:, /~ '.~ ;~;(l~' - ,'~~_~~_~ . :: ~. -- i~ r. r:)'·.:. . . .
",{gil,};;,
~<~"".>~" .
>"",:... ":':':,';">,
i9Jpllate
~,
change ,:!",?-ndtl,i.~
;:' ,
l1eedJ9act
.. I: ';', ,~,,~ 11'1 t~ 1::..-,,:,01'1 I.
qU1c~ly, tlieCltY:j§askmg that the CommIssIOn delay
',; '(',i\'~ .it.";,, :"",' ;;;.
"l~~"" y\.<decisi:ons ontheipro'posi~(:1:¢p.a'ng~§}at th~s ~il11e: InJhe matelials that we have reviewed, it is
A2fi;i}8'Jsl;E;1~C~E!Q~i2~~;~'f~:I~'iP~cle~~l~Sw lth~~~pOli.~'~8Iii~4~eS'~i!l~f~eQ~'iJ?rOp;~rti'~~, .ac~ess and pUbli.c facilities within the
:.' " ( (',<:lty'S JHn~dlctIoW It~sl1ncJ~9:;rv/'11,et11erandJwwJuI1sdIctIOnal boundanes may be altered and
i", . . ··!J·~.·'Wh~the'r")1tjWl&114~·:'\Vllf:\i'~iffect~~jI!!aWaYtlie~i~renot under the current plan's policies. There
~.\;. ·'J.i§:l'nUChSUlJl19I#Y'~W~g~agejl1illt·Wiai{·th~tprQ!ecrssuitable development around the Bay, but it
~'~i.\;, •..•.•:';"",';.• ;".", :.x,;i·i~:~n¥lsa5~q;ii.!li~g£Og§:~,~4.s~~B~~§CQllld~it~fcuv~ntland use plans in individual
commumtIes. . f···· " c ' ; ' , 'co,, ,~:.;~"
. c. ;'F'
~,\~'
We appreciate the Commi8~iO~'s'c6~$id~r~tio~.'~nd sensitivii)' to local conul1unity planllirlg. The

City of Santa Clara iSQo~litted to c011,~eiieql'egional planning that protects our environment
'. and opportunities. We look forward tbworking with the Commission and BCDC staff on .
1~i1d~rstandingth6 proposed change~andassisting in ways that we can.
• ':""~' :" , ,-: '"" -- -' "'. , i
:~leF'~:
Director of Plmming and Inspection'; ('
KLR
cc: City Manager
I:\PLANNING\2010\CC -CM 2010\2010 CMA-CCAssignments\BCDC Response LTR 10.6.l0.doc
1500 Warburton Avenue

Santa Clara. CA 95050
(408)615-2450
FAX (408) 247-9857
www.santaclaraca.gov
City of San Leandro
Civic Center, 835 E. 14th Street
San Leandro, California 94577
Office of the Mayor 510-577-3356

FAX 510-577-3340
October 6, 2010
Joseph La Clair, Chief Planner

50 Califomia Street, Suite 2600
Subject: Proposed BCDC Bay Plan Amendments on Climate Change
Dear Mr. La Clair:
This letter is proposed for pali of the public record for the public hearing on Thursday, October
7,2010, relating to the proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 conceming Climate Change. Thank
you for the oppOliunity to participate in this vitally important topic. At this time, we respectively
request that BCDC halt the Bay Plan amendment process alld initiate a regional, collaborative
.and creative strategy, which includes local govemments, stakeholders, state agencies and federal'
agencies.
San Leandro has been intensively involved in the Climate Change debate. The City Council
adopted an award wi11l1ing Transit Oriented Development Strategy, has set a 25 percent GHG
reduction goal, adopted a Climate Action Plan and has three Priority Development Areas, where
,~'"
responsible sustainable development will be emphasized. We have a history and remain
coimllitted to smali and ~esponsible growth. .,.' - .., ..
San Leandro is in the midst of a major master plan effOli on 40 acres of the San Leandro
shoreline, which includes large swaths of undemtilized and blighted areas. A collaborative
process with a potential developer, City staff and a citizen advisory committee has been meeting
for the last two years. City staff has met with BCDC staff as pali ofthat process to ensure we are
responsibly plal1l1ing for climate change. We appreciate BCDC input and want to ensure the
expertise of BCDC is considered in the strategic planning of this important City resource, often
refened to as "The Jewel of the City."
We are concemed with the unilateral approach BCDC seems to be considering in a clearly multi-
jurisdictional matter. Specifically, Finding o. on page 12 of the Staff RepOli dated September 3,
2010, which asselis the following:
• o. Approaches for ensuring public safety in developed vulnerable shoreline areas include:
(3) discouraging permanent new development; (4) allowing only interim new uses that
can be removed or phased out as inundation threats increase; and (5) removing existing
development.
Finding v. on page'14 acknowledges that BCDC was created for the very important purpose of
preventing Ulll1eCessary filling of the Bay and increasing public access to the Bay shoreline.
Expanding BCDC authority beyond this primary purpose usurps the power and authority of other
agencies and organizations with equally impOliant missions and specialized expeliise, including
but not limited to, The Anny Corps of Engineers, FEMA, County Flood Control Districts and
local government.
In conclusion, please initiate a public process which stalis with widespread notification of the
issues to local governments, including Public Warks, Engineering, Recreation and Conll11Unity
Devel~pment Departments, regional agencies, state agencies alld federal agencies, to participate
in a creative, collaborative, multi-jurisdictional and meallingful strategy to address Climate
Change.
Thank you for considering San Leandro's request to halt the Bay Plan amendment process and
develop a collaborative strategy.
. ~:,
Mayor
cc: San Leandro City Council

Sean Randolph, Chair; BCDC
",>, Ellen Joslin Johnck, Executive Director, Bay Planning Coalition
Karen Engle, Executive Director, East Bay EDA
.... >J)
.1;' Prinled 011 Recycled Paper
.),
RICHMOND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Steve Duran, Executive Director
October 6,2010
~lE~~~\'#lE[D)
Commission Members
OCT 122010
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Cominission SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
50 California Street, Suite 2600 & DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Re: Comments on Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment 1-08
Dear Coriunission Members:
The Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") and City of Richmond (the
"City") appreciate this opportunity to provide comments to the San Francisco Bay Conservation
and Development Commission ("BCDC") regarding the proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08
(the "Amendment") concerning climate change.
The Agency and City submit these general comments in the hopes that BCDC will not adopt the
Amendment until the proposed regulations and their implications are fully studied and presented
to all stakeholders, including the Agency and City.
The Agency and City share BCDC's concerns regarding the potentially drastic effects of climate
change on the San Francisco Bay Area and agree that a proactive approach is necessary. This
approach, however, is best' implemented at a local level. The Agency and City, like other local
governments, already evaluate climate change impacts as part of their standard environmental
review process for projects proposed inthe City. Further, the State of Califomia has recognized
through its legislative actions, such as AB 32 and SB 375, and the Air Resources Board has
stated in its climate change scoping plan, that local govemments are "essential partners" to
achieving the State's climate change goals.
The Agency and City are concerned that the Amendment has not been sufficiently understood by
the many cities, agencies, and counties throughout the Bay Area that will be affected by the
Amendment. The proposed Amendment proposes significant policy changes that would impact
local governments, yet the Bay Plan Amendment process does not appear to have fully engaged
local govennnents, including the Agency and City. Although public hearings and workshops on
the Amendment were held in 2008 and 2009, the staffreport does not identify any concerted
outreach to local govemments or other stakeholders, including the Agency and City. Changes of
this magnitude should directly involve all stakeholders, including local agencies and
govemments that currently exercise regulatory control over the potentially affected areas.
440 Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 4046, Richmond, CA 94804-1630

Telephone: (510) 307-8140 Fax: (510) 307-8195 www.cLrichmond.ca.us
Through this letter, the Agency and City request that BCDC not take any action on the proposed
Bay Plan Amendment at its October 7,2010, meeting. The Agency and City further request that
no action be taken on the proposed Amendment until BCDC has presented the proposed policy
changes to local agencies and governments, and until these agencies and the public have had an
opportunity to fully review and submit formal comments on the Amendment.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. We look forward to working with BCDC
on addressing issues of climate change in the Bay Area and especially Richmond.
SI£~ ~/VZti'l'i~'(~'
\/
Alan A. Wolken, Director Lina Velasco, Acting Director
Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency City of Richmond Planning & Building ServiCes
cc: Will Travis, BCDC Executive Director (via email)

Steven Goldbeck, BCDC Chief Deputy Director (via email)
Joseph LaClair BCDC Chief Planning Officer (via email)
John Gioia, County Supervisor (via email)
Randy Riddle, City Attorney (via email)
B'ruceGoodmiller, Assistant City Attorney (via email)
William Lindsay, City Manager (via email)

BCDC Climate Change Amendments To The Bay Plan

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BCDC Climate Change Amendments To The Bay Plan

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Richmond Development Company, LLC

Agenda Item #11

Re: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08

Dear Mr. LaClair:

Very truly yours,

Re: Bay Plan Climate Change Amendments

Dear Executive Director. Chairman and Commissioners:

September 22, 2010

Dear Chairman Randolph:

Comment No.1· Climate Change Finding c. (pages 8-9)

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 448, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

Comment No.2- ;Qlima~e Cl~ange Finding o. (page 12)

Comment No. 3 - Climate Change Finding r. (page 13)

Comment No.4 - Climate Challge··Policy 1 (page 15)

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 436, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

Comment No.6· Climate Change•.Policy 5 (page 16)

Rationale: See Above.

Comment No.7· Climate Change••Policy Sa. (page 16)

Rationale: See Above

Comment No.8· Shoreline Protection··Policy 1. (page 24)

Rationale: See Above.

Very truly yours,

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 436, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102

P.O. Box 8097

5an Francisco, CA 94128

Subject: Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 1-08 Concerning Climate Change

CITY AND COUNTY

Very truly yours,

cc: Joe LaClair, BCDC

SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94104 T 415.772.5900

cc: R. Sean Randolph, Bay Area Council, Chair, BCDC

<) 100% Post Consumer Waste

September 30, 2010

Re: Bay Plan Climate Change Amendments

Dear Director Travis and Chairman Randolph:

IvlARK N. ADDillGO, MAYOR

BARRY M, NAGEL, CITY MANAGER

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER

Re: Comments on Proposed Climate Change Bay Plan Amendment

Dear Commission Members:

The Gitysubmits these'general comments - on

cc: . Members of the City Council of South San Francisco

Dear Mr. LaClair:

COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING LAMORINDA OFFICE

Honorable R. Sean Randolph, Chair

RE: Bay Plan Amendment No. 1-08

Dear Chair Randolph and Honorable BCDC Commissioners,

I am writing to communicate my strong reservations regarding the Commission's

Many of the jurisdictions that I represent from the shoreline of unincorporated

I can be reached at 925-335-1046 if there are questions regarding my

cc: Eric Zell

Santa Clara & San Benito Counties

Painters District Council 16

Do not curtail waterfront de,'e]opment

Significant regional economic impacts

Thank you for your consideration.

Oakland Mayor Ronald V. Dellurns

In summary, we recommend you suspend consideration of the proposed amendments and

Thank you for your consideration.

.Ii please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.

P. 12, Section 0: "Approaches for ensuring public safety in developed vulnerable

Thank you for your consideration.

R. Sean Randolph, Chair