September 7 , 2006 Commission Meeting Minutes

Approved Minutes of September 7 , 2006 Commission Meeting

  1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Port of San Francisco Board Room, Ferry Building, San Francisco, California at 1:15 p.m.
  2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Baird (represented by Potter), Bates, Fernekes, Gibbs, Gioia, Gordon, Hicks, Klass, Kniss (represented by Alternate Carruthers), Kondylis, Lai-Bitker, Lundstrom, Moy, Nelson, Peskin (represented by Alternate Owen), Thayer (represented by Alternate Kato), and Waldeck.

    Not Present were: Business, Transportation and Housing Agency (Bourgart), Sonoma County (Brown), Governor’s Appointees (Goldzband and Jordan), Marin County (McGlashan), Association of Bay Area Governments (Mossar), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Schwinn), and Napa County (Wagenknecht).

  3. Public Comment Period. Paul Scott, President of Citizens to Save the Waterfront, said he opposes the Mills Project. He expressed his continuing concerns relative to the Alcatraz Ferry service starting up at Pier 31, without any environmental review. His organization has filed a lawsuit in an effort to put the Hornblower’s project on hold until BCDC issues a permit. A letter was received by Mr. Travis on behalf of BCDC, indicating that he did not believe a permit would be required for Hornblower to begin its service at Pier 31. This troubles him because there will be no CEQA review before this service begins.

    He urged the Commission to take a look at the decision of Mr. Travis. Mr. Scott believes this service would need a BCDC permit review based on (1) the activity having an estimated cost of $250,000 or more; (2) whether it involves a substantial change in the intensity of the use, and (3) whether it will adversely affect future access.
    Mr. Scott said it is difficult for him to understand how a twenty-fold increase in the number of people visiting a pier is not a substantial change in the intensity of the use. This will have ramifications to the neighborhood and the waterfront.
    Arthur Feinstein spoke to the recreation policy that will be discussed later this afternoon. In looking through the policies he noted there was no finding that laid the groundwork for the policies saying why one would care about an interaction between recreation and wildlife. He brought this to the attention of BCDC staff and they created a new finding which is in the Commission’s packet. He supports the entire plan and urged the Commission to adopt this last minute addendum.

    Michael Wilmar, with the law firm of Sheppard Mullin, represents Hornblower Yachts in the matter that is pending with respect to the Alcatraz service. He understands that the only matter that the Commission can properly consider today, in its closed session, is whether or not to take action in the litigation.
    Mr. Wilmar said neither Mr. Scott’s comments nor Mr. Reddick’s letter raise any issues that were not fully considered by BCDC’s Executive Director. The facilities associated with the start-up service are minimal and will not cost more than $250,000. It is inappropriate to include the cost of the vessel in computing the costs. In addition, there will be no impacts on public access or on traffic. A traffic study has been performed and it shows that, simply because there may be an increase in numbers, it does not mean that there will be substantial changes, increases or impacts on public access within BCDC’s jurisdiction.

    Mr. Wilmar said the start-up service concept does not constitute a substantial change in use or in the intensity of use. It is simply an increase in an already permitted activity.
    Laura Thompson, Manager of the San Francisco Bay Shore Project commented on Item No. 8. She respectfully requested that the Commission amend Bay Plan Recreation 4c as currently proposed without deleting the term “significant”. The policy language as written provides a balanced approach determining comprehensive and compatible public uses in wildlife refuges. Agreement on this standard was reached through a collaborative public process and no new scientific information has been presented that would justify revising this standard. Any consideration for change in this standard and deletion of the word “significant” from this policy should be subject to an extensive public process open to all stakeholders.

  4. Approval of Minutes of August 17 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion to adopt the minutes.
    MOTION: Commissioner Kondylis moved, seconded by Commissioner Owen to approve the August 17, 2006 minutes. The motion passed with four abstentions.
  5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph provided the following update:
    1. Next BCDC meeting. Will be on September 21 with the annual strategic planning workshop to be held. It will be held at Nile Hall in Preservation Park in Oakland from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He urged both Commissioners and their alternates to attend the annual workshop.
      Commissioner Carruthers asked that when the materials for this workshop are sent out, could parking options be included.
    2. Ex-Parte Communications. If any of our commissioners may have inadvertently forgotten to report ex-parte communications whether written or oral, they were invited to report on such communications now.
      Commissioner Waldeck said he was contacted via e-mail from Paul Albrittan, from the City of Sausalito, regarding an inspection of a facility called “Fish”.
      Commissioner Owen said he discussed agenda item number 11 with the City Attorney’s office in San Francisco.
      Commissioner Kondylis said, with the controversy of Potrero Hills, she has been contacted often, but she does not have the time to keep track of all who have contacted her.
  6. Report of the Executive Director. Mr. Travis provided the following report:
    1. Personnel. Karen Wolowicz has joined BCDC staff as a permit analyst and Carolynn Box became the newest member of the enforcement staff. Both were introduced to the Commission.
      At the last meeting the Commission was informed that David Canny had been selected to fill a new position in the dredging section. Unfortunately, Mr. Canny reconsidered his decision and will not be joining BCDC staff, so that position still needs to be filled.
      Anna Yee has been selected for the position of contracts manager for BCDC and she will join BCDC’s administrative services team in mid-October. Elsa Gomez will be reporting for work as an IT manager and website maestro in mid-September.
      Andrea Gaut will begin a one-year maternity leave in early November. To backfill for Andrea, Jamie Michaels will take on a limited term assignment as a working supervisor. There are currently eight vacant staff positions to fill.
    2. Permit Fee Workshop. BCDC staff will hold a workshop on Thursday, September 14, to informally discuss ideas for revising the permit fee schedule. The goal is to make the fee schedule more effective in actually achieving the revenue targets and to make it more equitable for permit applicants. The workshop will be held at the BCDC office at 1:30 p.m. on September 14. The hope is to be able to reach some agreement on the best approach for a new fee schedule before the formal legally required rule-making process to amend the regulations is started.
  7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters. Mr. McAdam was available to answer any questions on the administrative listing that was provided to the Commissioners. There were no questions.
  8. Vote on proposed Bay Plan Amendment 2-06 to update the San Francisco Bay Plan Recreation findings and policies, the Bay Plan Map notes, policies and suggestions, and Resolution 16. Chair Randolph introduced Joe LaClair, Senior Planner. Mr. LaClair presented the staff’s final recommendation on Bay Plan Amendment 2-06, updating the recreation findings and policies, the Bay Plan Map notes, policies and suggestions and priority use designations pertaining to recreation and Resolution 16.
    Mr. LaClair said BCDC received 12 letters and 6 e-mails from the public regarding staff’s recommendation. Staff’s final recommendation discusses the comments from the public and from the Commission, and the revisions to staff’s final recommendation are in response to those comments.
    In the final recommendation, staff proposes to make several changes to the findings and policies in response to public and Commissioner comments.
    First, in finding a., staff proposes to add a sentence to acknowledge that participating in recreation activities on the Bay, and along its shoreline can inspire an appreciation of the Bay and can motivate people to participate in the responsible management and protection of the Bay. This finding is in response to comments from the public.
    Finding b., and policy one, were modified to address more directly the concerns of environmental justice in the provision of recreational opportunities for people of all races, ages, cultures and income levels and is in response to comments from the Commission and from the public.
    Staff recommends adding the phrase “potential conflicts with commercial shipping or ferries” to revised finding e., to address the need to consider navigational safety when locating boating facilities in relation to commercial shipping and fast ferries.
    The staff also recommends adding ferry routes to the list of navigational safety considerations in finding k., and the phrase “improved public safety” to finding u., regarding the benefits of educational programs. These changes are in response to comments from the Commission.
    In response to public and Commissioner comments, staff recommends adding a sentence to finding f., acknowledging the positive role boating organizations have in providing access to the Bay
    In finding l., staff recommends adding the words “continuous” to more accurately reflect the Ridge Trail Projects published self-description.
    Staff recommends adding a new finding s., which reads: “If not properly located, improved or managed, recreation activities can have adverse affects on wildlife. This problem can be addressed by applying the Bay Plan public access findings and polices that address the compatibility of recreational activities with wildlife and their habitats when considering recreation-related development proposals.”
    The staff also recommends that findings s., through v., in the final recommendation be re-lettered to t., through w.
    In response to Commission comments, staff recommends adding the phrase: “or security and exclusion zones” to proposed policy 3.e.(2) to address the need to avoid U.S. Coast Guard security and exclusion zones in boating areas.
    In response to public and Commission comments, staff recommends adding policy 3.e.5, that supports locating facilities for boating organizations in waterfront parks where appropriate, because they can facilitate access to the Bay for a wide variety of people. The word “that” should be inserted in the sentence: “Facilities for boating organizations provide..”
    In response to public comment, staff recommends adding the phrase, “such as swimming” to the first sentence of policy 3.g. and adding swimming to the list of uses to be emphasized in waterfront parks in policy 4.a.2.
    In response to Commission comments, staff recommends adding ferry routes to the list of information to be provided in signage at recreation facilities in policy eight.
    Based on comments from the public, staff recommends additional changes to the Bay Plan Maps as follows:
    Suggestion J on Map 2 should be deleted. The names of the railroads on all Bay Planning Maps will be corrected. Southern Pacific will be changed to the Union Pacific and Santa Fe will be changed to the Burlington Northern Santa Fe.
    On figures 25 and 28, Plan Maps 6 and 7, the Ravenswood Open Space Preserve owned by the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District, will be shown as tidal marsh and will be identified by name on these maps.
    On figures 11 and 18, Plan Maps 4 and 5, the Plan Map Note regarding Treasure Island will be changed to read: “A large open space at the north end of the island.”
    On figures 14 and 21, Plan Maps 4 and 5, the Plan Map Policy regarding Treasure Island will be changed to read: “When no longer owned or controlled by the federal government, redevelop for public use, provide continuous public access to the Bay in a manner protective of sensitive wildlife, provide parking and water access for users of non-motorized small water craft, including at the north end of the island, develop a system of linked open spaces, including a large open space at the north end of the island.”
    On figure 14, Plan Map 4, add a new policy for the Point Pinole Regional Shoreline, which would read: “Preserve regional park trails, fishing pier, picnic facilities, transit access, active play areas, historical and cultural resources and wetlands, provide wildlife compatible recreation, potential water trial campsite, preserve and interpret natural features and cultural and historic resources, allow improvement of Goodrick Avenue that is compatible with recreation and conservation uses for access to inland development.”
    A copy of the Resolution mailed on Friday, September 1, inadvertently omitted existing, but renumbered policy number 7. That allows small amounts of bay fill for waterfront parks and recreational areas that provide substantial public benefits and they cannot be developed without some filling. It also incorrectly specified the day of the vote, which has been corrected.
    Staff also recommends one additional change to Resolution 16, for priority use area 50 at the Emeryville Peninsula to add the words “police and fire station” to the boundaries (B) and (C).
    With these additional changes, staff recommends that the Commission adopt Resolution 06-07 that would amend the Bay Plan, recreation findings and policies as identified in the final recommended changes to the Bay Plan Findings and Policy Section of the staff report, amend the Bay Plan Map Notes, Policies, Suggestions and Park Priority Use areas as identified in the final recommended changes to the Bay Plan Maps Section, and amend Resolution 16 as described in the final recommended changes to Resolution 16 section.
    MOTION: Commissioner Kondylis moved, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted to approve the Staff Recommendation for proposed Bay Plan Amendment 2-06.
    Commissioner Halsted mentioned that there was a letter received from the Central Waterfront Advisory Group implying that it held its first planning meeting recently and she asked how their comments should be addressed. Mr. LaClair said the issue in their letter was also raised by a number of people at the public hearing and in correspondence received. The final recommendation reflects the requested change and is located in finding f and policy 3.e. Commissioner Halsted requested Mr. LaClair to respond to the letter from the Central Waterfront Advisory Group.
    Commissioner Carruthers asked staff to respond to the comment from Ms. Thompson regarding the wording of policy 4 c. He understood her to say that there was some alternative wording that would be more favorable and he would like to have the specifics regarding this issue. Mr. LaClair said Ms. Thompson suggested that the word “significant” not be deleted from Policy 4.c. The staff determined that this would create a double standard for recreational uses. Staff coordinated the proposed wording closely with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and with the Department of Fish and Game and their comments were incorporated into staff’s recommendation.
    Mr. Travis said it was his understanding that Ms. Thompson was testifying in support of the language as recommended by staff. Ms. Thompson agreed that this is the case.
    Commissioner Nelson thanked staff for their suggestion of adding finding s. He feels this is a good solution.
    Commissioner Gioia referred to page 10 (4.b.). The phrase “for all” is a broad phrase and may get a lot of different interpretations. He suggested that the same language under finding b., should be added 4.b. Mr. Travis verified that this will be amended as requested.
    Commissioner Gioia said on page 7 of the staff report, the Commission had talked about not taking out the word “public” on the description of the Bay Ridge Trail and the word “continuous” was used. He asked if some of the Ridge Trail will not be public and therefore that is why the word “public” is being deleted. Mr. LaClair said the reason for this is because that is how the Ridge Trail describes themselves and staff does not want to add language that they do not use to describe their project. Mr. Travis said he would be hesitant to incorporate the word “public” because the Ridge Trail does not describe itself in this way. Commissioner Gioia asked staff if they could get clarification from the Ridge Trail regarding this item.
    Commissioner Nelson said there is clearly a difference between a trail sitting on public property and a publicly accessible trail so he does not want to create confusion by adding the term “public”.
    Commissioner Carruthers suggested asking the Ridge Trail if they would agree using the term “public”. Mr. Travis, said he will use the word “public” unless after consultation with both the Bay Trail and Ridge trail, staff finds that there is a solid rationale for not putting it in.
    Commissioner Gioia said on page 89 there was language added to the Plan Map 4 and the Point Pinole regional shoreline and it is not on the Map. He said he wanted to be clear about the last sentence in that he believes it is in response to a developer in that area. Is the last sentence something that BCDC would normally do in terms of allowing improvement of a particular street? Mr. LaClair said this is a unique condition where Goodrick Avenue comes within the area will be designated as a park priority use area. The road in this area is in poor condition and it is the logical access point to the inland 20-acre development that is being carved out for the people whose property is being condemned.
    Commissioner Gioia said there had been discussion about including other land as part of park priority. These are lands which are currently part of municipal parks. He asked if there was a reason why the maps won’t show this. Mr. LaClair said the Commissions park priority use areas typically focus on regional scale parks. Commissioner Gioia said this particular piece is part of the national parks. Mr. LaClair said this is a consideration, and another consideration is that the Marina Bay Shoreline is all public access areas that were required in Commission permits and pursuant to the special area plan adopted by the Commission for this area.
    Commissioner Gioia said part of the issue is that the national park is a regional asset and the component of the city park that is in the national park may be reflected as a park priority area.
    Mr. Travis said Rosie the Riveter National Historic Monument is innovative in that it has no property nor budget and there are a number of the historic components of the park that are within an operating port. While it is encompassed by Rosie the Riveter, it is not a national park. The Bay Plan tends to look at the larger regionally significant areas and Resolution 16 stipulates where the priority use areas along the shoreline start and end and they always encompass the full 100 feet.
    Commissioner Gioia said from a regional standpoint it was hard to understand how the two parks were treated differently. He suggested adding the appropriate piece which is the area of the public city park.
    Mr. LaClair said you will then end up with discontinuous segments of shoreline and it may be appropriate to engage the city in a discussion before a decision is made. Commissioner Gioia said the area from East Bay Park all the way around the shoreline to the other end is owned by the City of Richmond, is public, and it is all part of Rosie the Riveter. Mr. Travis said he understands Commissioner Gioia’s perspective, but the staff recommendation stands.
    Commissioner Lundstrom commended Mr. LaClair and staff for the extremely comprehensive document that they put together. She said staff was very responsive in having a balance of opinions and comments reflected in the document.
    Commissioner Kato said with regard to Policy 3.c. State Lands does not wish to argue the point here, but for the record stated that State Lands has a different set of standards in regards to authorizing live-aboard boats.
    Commissioner Bates complimented the staff. He asked what the red line on Map 4 by line 13 included. Mr. LaClair said it includes the ball field area owned by East Bay Parks.
    Commissioner Lai-Bitker said when Commissioner Kato mentioned that the State has a different standard it was confusing because the Commission is a State Commission and so why are there not consistent standards.
    Mr. Travis said generally the Commission says up to 10 percent of the boats in a recreational marina can be live-aboards if they are sited in a fashion that enhances security in the marina and advances the recreational use of the marina. As he understands the State Lands standards, it is, “some boats in a recreational marina can be used for live-aboards, so long as they are sited and located in a fashion that advances the recreational use of the marina.” This seems to be a distinction without a difference. State Lands is not opposed to the recommendation for keeping the policy, but simply flagging the fact that they look at it a little differently.
    Commissioner Kondylis mentioned that Plan Map No. 2 shows railroad tracks that really don’t come from anyplace and they don’t seem to go anyplace. Mr. LaClair said he will delete this if it is incorrect.
    Commissioner Bates asked if once this Plan is adopted would it be possible to get a comprehensive map for the entire Bay for the priority use areas. Mr. LaClair said he will look into this to see if it would be possible to develop something like this.
    Chair Randolph asked for a vote through a roll call. The motion carried with 19 ayes, 0 no’s and 0 abstentions.
    Commissioner Kondylis added one more correction to the Plan. Tubb’s Island is designated as a wildlife refuge and it is actually a sewage sludge dump. Mr. LaClair will look into this to be sure it is correctly designated on the map.
    Commissioner Carruthers asked if in the future the staff can clarify what they mean by regional. For instance, what are the criteria for a regional project to be included and what are the criteria by which local projects are not included.
    VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 19-0-0 with Commissioners Potter, Bates, Fernekes, Gibbs, Gioia, Gordon, Hicks, Klass, Carruthers, Kondylis, Lai-Bitker, Lundstrom, Moy, Nelson, Owen, Kato, Waldeck, Halsted and Chair Randolph voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions.
  9. Briefing on the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. Mr. Steve Ritchie, Executive Project Manager for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, provided an update.
    He provided two handouts: (1) a brochure for the project (2) a copy of the set of slides he will be presenting.
    Mr. Ritchie provided background on the historic loss of tidal wetlands around San Francisco Bay. Down the road there will be substantial restoration of tidal Baylands both at the North Bay with the Salt Pond, the Hamilton Airfield Project, and in the South Bay with the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project.
    What was acquired in the South Bay were three large parcels, Eden Landing Parcel in the north, the Ravenswood Pond, and Alviso Pond totaling 15,100 acres of salt ponds that were acquired in the South Bay.
    Mr. Ritchie manages the development of the restoration plan for the 15,100 acres. His mission is to prepare a scientifically sound and publicly supported restoration and public access plan that can begin to be implemented within five years.
    The three basic components of the restoration are habitat restoration, public access and recreation, and flood management.
    There are issues, such as mosquitoes and the fear that the restoration might create good conditions for the mosquitoes, preserving infrastructure, invasive species and predators, and climate change that need to be dealt with, as well as the need to look into alternative scenarios.
    Many stakeholders have been involved in developing the restoration plan. There is a Stakeholder Forum consisting of 29 members who provide advice on behalf of the public. In addition there is a regulatory agency group which meets with Mr. Ritchie regularly.
    The basic project approach will be habitat distribution and public access. There are three alternatives: (1) no action; (2) the managed pond emphasis; and (3) tidal emphasis. He is engaging in adaptive management, which is basically going through step wise implementation, doing a little bit at a time and setting it up in a way that you can learn from and then move to the next step. It will take approximately 50 years to get to the ultimate end point.
    There will be a combination of sources to help pay for this project: federal, Fish and Wildlife Service, Geological Survey and NOAA funds, a Corps of Engineers authorized project through the Water Resources Development Act, and Proposition 40 money. Proposition 184 and 1E will be on the ballot and represent potential funding sources for this project. On the local front, the Santa Clara Water District and the Alameda Flood Control District are contributing funds.
    In January 2007 he expects to have the public draft EIS/EIR with the final EIS/EIR completed by the end of summer 2007 and permitting activities in fall of 2007 so implementation can begin in 2008.
    Commissioner Gioia asked what the likelihood is of the salt ponds that continue to be used for salt production might be added to this project in the future. Mr. Ritchie said the ponds on the East Bay Shoreline are largely owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service and Cargill retains the right to make salt on these in perpetuity. Cargill has implied that they plan to stay there and make salt, but that could change because there is no process. Mr. Ritchie is structuring his plan so that he is prepared for what the landscape might look like if that resource comes his way.
    Chair Randolph asked what is involved in terms of restoration. Mr. Ritchie said the first step of restoration has already occurred with the initial stewardship plan. The ponds were used for salt production and had very high concentration of salt in them. In the initial stewardship plan Cargill worked hard to drop the levels of salinity in each of the ponds to a level that when it was opened the Bay water would not be toxic to aquatic life. This has occurred over time and the ponds have been handed over for management to the Fish and Wildlife Service and Fish and Game and they are running Bay water through the ponds through a series of gates and culverts that are circulating Bay water through there to maintain Bay water salinity.
    The second step is to breach the levee in the ponds and let nature take its course.
    Commissioner Nelson asked Mr. Ritchie to talk about the management goals that are guiding the adaptive management. He asked if he is looking for habitat mix or wildlife use and how will he know when he has obtained the correct mix. Mr. Ritchie said a document called “The Big Table” has a number of key areas that are being looked at. The project objective is to contribute to the recovery of the California Clapper Rail and there are measures of how tidal marsh is recovering and will be assessed around the recovery plan numbers.
    Chair Randolph asked if there would be a plan that addresses climate change. Mr. Ritchie said in his analysis there is a certain allowance for sea level, and he will be adding in flexibility and responsiveness into the plan.

    Commissioner Halsted asked how far along the funding that has been identified will take him with the plan and what opportunities are there for mitigation. Mr. Ritchie said currently he has about half the funds confirmed and by calendar year end his goal is to have all funds confirmed.
    On the mitigation front, Mr. Ritchie said he met with the regulatory agencies regarding actively seeking out mitigation from routine customers. He is at the beginning stages and if funding becomes available there is time to work this issue out.
    Commissioner Carruthers asked what sort of permit process might the Commission anticipate with this project. Mr. Ritchie said this is still being worked out, but his intention is to bring back a material amendment to the permit that was issued for the interim facilities for Phase One of this project. And hopefully there will be enough information developed that the Commission could approve in concept the entire restoration program. And then the service and Department would come back to the Commission for administrative actions to develop Phases Two, Three, Four and Five.

  10. Briefing on the Harbor Safety Committee. Commissioner Lundstrom, who chairs the Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region, provided a briefing on the role of the Committee and BCDC’s participation on the Committee.
    Commissioner Lundstrom explained that the Harbor Safety Committee of the San Francisco Bay Region was established by state law to prevent oil spills on San Francisco Bay and for the safe navigation and operation of tankers, barges and other vessels encompassing all vessel traffic within the harbor.
    Funding for this Committee is received from the State Office of Spill Prevention and Response.
    The Harbor Safety Committee is a town meeting for the maritime community to consider information presented by the various reporting agencies, including the U.S. Coast Guard.
    The geographic limits are set up by state law and extend from 12 miles offshore up the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and include the Ports of Sacramento and Stockton.
    The San Francisco Bay Region is one of the busiest harbors in the country. Additionally there are more than 85,000 commuter ferry trips that carry over one million passengers and 20,000 registered recreational boaters in San Francisco Bay.
    BCDC participates at the full committee level and in all the work groups to prevent potential adverse impacts to the Bay and the shoreline. All of the Committee’s meetings are publicly noticed and operate under the Brown Act. The Committee meets monthly and rotates meetings among the various ports.
    Work groups are set up in response to the many safety issues faced by the maritime community, and include the Tug Escorts Work Group, Navigation Work Group, the Ferry Work Group, and Prevention Through People Work Group.
    All of the Committee’s efforts are to prevent maritime accidents in order to prevent oil spills in the Bay.
    There were no questions from the public.
  11. Closed session to discuss a lawsuit filed by Citizens to save the Waterfront Against Alcatraz Cruises LLC, Hornblower Yachts, and Hornblower Cruises and Events. Off the record at 3:21 p.m. to enter into closed session.
  12. New Business. There was no new business.
  13. Old Business. There was no old business.
  14. Adjournment. Upon motion by Vice Chair Halsted, seconded by Commissioner
    Alice Lai-Bitker the meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Executive Director

Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of October 5, 2006