Minutes of the Board of Directors Meeting
At
“DRAFT”
The meeting began at
Board members in attendance in addition to President
Allardyce were, Diana Taylo9r,
Debra Bleemer,
Board members who were absent: Joe Wyman and
Linda Schwartz.
1. The minutes
of the last meeting on
2. Treasurers
Report by Parlette was presented and she distributed Balance Sheets and Income
Statements for the year-to-date period.
Efforts at getting existing members to renew their memberships for 2008
were being received, and the Association had a net income $688 for the current
period.
3. The results
of the Association’s First Neighborhood Party was
discussed, and all agreed it was a very successful event, with many new
potential members in attendance. Special
thanks were given to
4. Committee Reports:
A.
Community Planning/Advocacy for North Waterfront – Waterfront Committee
Chairperson Taylor presented a detailed plan for developing a
community-based vision for development in the The
action items was thenproposal
tabled until the next Board meeting.
B. Taylor and Middlebrook then presented a series of issues taken
from the Save The Bay/SF Tomorrow position statement
opposing the Cruise Ship/Office Project proposed for Piers
27-31. (The text of their presentation appears in Appendix 2 of the
minutes.) The Board discussed each issue and proposed
modifications. Middlebrook will draft a letter [addressed to the Port
Commission] that will provide a preliminary position of the
C.
D. Other – Copies of the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed
Exploratorium project at Pier 15 were distributed to interested Board members.
5. Existing & New Committee Activities for
2007
A. Membership Committee – Sauro presented the latest
membership roster showing 39 renewals and three new members. Membership literature was distributed to all
guests who attended the Nov. 14 party and it was hoped that a good percentage
of those might become due-paying voting members of the
B.
Newsletter Committee – Several Board members stated that the latest laid designed
out and the Board appreciated the
efforts of newsletter author June Osterberg.
Various scenarios of payment methods to Osterberg were then
discussed. Parlette moved that the
creation of a quarterly newsletter was important enough to warrant payments to
Osterberg regardless of whether any new members are added to the rolls of the
Association directly due to the newsletter.
The proposal was approved unanimously by the Board.
C.
Program and Social Event Committee – No discussion.
8. The next
9. The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully
submitted,
William
H. Sauro
Secretary
APPENDIX 1
Date:
To: BCNA Board
From:
BCNA Waterfront Committee
Subject: Developing
Community-based Waterfront Development
The BCNA Board approved in concept at the August meeting
a proposal to develop a community-based vision for development along the
Northern Waterfront. In order to move forward, we need seed funding to hire a
part-time staff person or consultant. The members of the Waterfront Committee
need staff assistance to write the project action plan and grant proposals as
well as assistance to convene a NE Waterfront Blue Ribbon Committee.
Based on estimates in the attached concept paper,
we need $10-15,000 start up funds to engage an individual or to contract with
one of the organizations described in the attached concept paper.
We
now need to express our commitment to community-based development in our
neighborhood, with money. So far we have pledges totaling $2000 toward an
estimated need for $15,000+.
The
$15,000+ will buy us professional help in raising money, creating design
proposals, and involving our neighbors.
We
have all been generous with our time and ideas. Don’t stop!
We
now urge the BCNA Board, individually and collectively, also to contribute
money to this signature BCNA effort.
PROPOSAL: Community
Planning/Advocacy for North Waterfront
Goal: Develop a community-based vision for development along the Northern
Waterfront and move beyond an adversarial relationship with the Port.
Organizational strategies—building relationships
as we build community
1.
Engage a diverse committee of civic, community and business leaders
▪ Attract diverse sources of funding and support
▪ Provide leadership for a community vision of
development with high level of
economic/financial/design feasibility built in.
2.
Community-driven waterfront plan rather than developer-driven
▪ Use WLUP/WDAE as an important document but it is
not a living thing anymore
▪ Engage people/community as experts rather than
having the Port convene their
show-and-tell
style workshop
▪
Excite people around something
positive; harder to sustain but likely to be more
productive.
3.
Focus on the positive and mobilize around a positive idea; some examples
include:
▪
Host a community-planning
process to create destinations, places, destination links
within a
section of the waterfront
▪
Hands-on field workshop using
community to assess uses, activities, etc
▪
Define key community principles
such as green-space connectedness,
neighborhood-friendly retail, cross-generational recreation, etc.
Funding
Funding
is required for part-time staff or consultants to write grants and develop the
project plan. Two models include a staff
model or a consulting model.
Staff
model: Hire a
part-time coordinator, exec. director, or development
consultant.
▪ Example: part-time project director
▪ Write grants and development proposals for political or organizational
approaches
▪ Salary or consulting fee: $100/hr., full-time approx. $7500/mo., min.
6mo commitment.
Consultant
model:
Contract with consulting groups or individual consultants
▪ Local consulting group: EDAW (www.edaw.com ,
Jacinta McCann has worked with a
▪ Local community planning org: Collaborative San Francisco (www.collaborative-sf.org,
founded by Bay Area Working Group and Neighborhood Assemblies Network) is
dedicated to
▪ Project for the Public Spaces (www.pps.org) has levels of
organizational support for
community-based
planning; has worked with
▪
evaluation),
plan/design review, site-specific conceptual development plans, and/or
the
implementation of a demonstration project. Costs range from $15,000 to
$100,000 depending on the level of consultation support.
▪
funding
sources. Alan Jacobs, former SF Planning Director, is on
▪ Potential funding sources: NE San Francisco Conservancy; SF
Foundation; local donors from
APPENDIX 2
Date:
To: Board of BCNA
From:
Waterfront Committee
Subject: BCNA
response and action regarding Save The Bay/SF Tomorrow
letter to Port Commission opposing Cruise Ship/Office Project at Piers 27-31
Two
respected organizations, Save the Bay and SF Tomorrow, have jointly taken a
formal position against the Shorenstein/Farallon office development at Piers
27-31 and the Port’s decision to construct a new cruise terminal at Pier 27. It
was suggested that the BCNA Board “sign on” in support of the letter sent to
the Port Commission (
In
their letter, STB and SFT make a number of arguments against the SF Piers LLC
Pier 27-31 project. Your Waterfront Committee has reviewed their letter and the
issues they raise. If consensus can be achieved among the BCNA Board, we will
draft a letter to the Port Commission. In order for the BCNA Board to take a
position on the proposed development (or parts of the development), we suggest
using the STB/SFT arguments for your consideration and discussion at next
week’s Board meeting:
1. We agree with and support
that part of “Inconsistency with Port’s RFP” that says the current SF Piers LLC
proposal does not develop active, public recreation sites, as envisioned in the
Port’s RFP.
2A. We do NOT
support STB/SFT’s apparent objection to a cruise
ship terminal on the North East waterfront. Properly designed with multiple
uses, such a facility is a genuine maritime use of Port property.
2B. We remain
neutral on the Port’s plan to develop Pier 27 as a Cruise Ship Terminal until
an RFP and/or EIR studies are available.
3. We support STB/SFT’s argument in the “Inconsistency with Waterfront
Special Area Plan” section referring to the non-compliance with the BCDC
approved plan for a 2-acre NE Wharf Plaza to promote public access.
4. While we do think that there is
reason to remove some
5. We are less concerned with office
space per se than we are concerned
with the scale of the proposed office development: too large, too high, and
too private for over-water development on the public’s waterfront.
6. We support 40’ absolute
waterfront height limits, as in historic district regulations (although it is
unclear whether City Planning Codes would apply and extend the total height to
50-56’ to allow for mechanicals .
7A. We are neutral on STB/SFT’s Pier 32 Cruise ship terminal
argument—it takes us out of our legal depth.
7B. We support requiring the Port to formally evaluate
the underlying rationale and entitlements related to cruise terminal
development at Piers 30-32. There is only so much capacity in the
infrastructure along the waterfront and to leave projects on the table that are not realistic will undermine the ability of
other projects to move forward.
a.
As stated in the STB/SFT letter: "If the current economics of pier
reinforcement for certain priority uses make renovation inefficient for some
Port structures previously viewed as assets, then an updated Waterfront Plan
should identify for removal piers that are now known to be liabilities, and the
Port should focus redevelopment efforts on those piers where reinforcement is
practical and cost-effective."
b.
Joe Wyman: This is a huge issue that the Port’s
Engineering Department has complete control over. The problems with the
substructure undermine the ability of simple on-going uses such as vessel
operations. The Port's response to crumbling infrastructure has been to do
visual surveys and give facilities a "yellow" or "red" tag
restricting the uses on the Pier even more.
The Port should be challenged as the substructure question given the
escalating construction costs of making even remedial repairs. One only needs to look at how Shorenstein is
using the substructure question to see how a sophisticated developer can play
the game.