June 15, 2006 Commission Meeting Minutes

Approved Minutes of June 15, 2006 Commission Meeting

1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Chair Randolph at the Metro Center Auditorium in Oakland, California at 1:35 p.m.

2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted, Commissioners Baird (represented by Alternate Potter), Bates, Bourgart, Brown (represented by Alternate Smith), Cutler (represented by Alternate Leonard), Fernekes, Gibbs, Goldzband, Gordon, Hicks, Lundstrom (represented by Alternate Messina), McGlashan, Mossar, Moy, Peskin (represented by Alternate Owen), Thayer (represented by Alernate Kato), and Waldeck. Also in attendance Legislative member Mary Ann Ruiz.
Not Present were: Contra Costa County (Gioia), Governors Appointee (Jordan) Department of Finance (Klass), Santa Clara County (Kniss), Solano County (Kondylis),
Alameda County (Lai-Bitker), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Schwinn), and Napa County (Wagenknecht).

3. Public Comment Period. There was no public comment.

4. Approval of Minutes of May 4, 2006 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion to adopt the minutes.
MOTION: Vice Chair Halsted moved, seconded by Commissioner Mossar to approve the May 4, 2006 minutes. The motion passed with six abstensions.

5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph provided the following update:

a. Port of Oakland Tour. Chair Randolph thanked the Port for their hospitality and tour of the new waterfront development sites along both the Oakland and Alameda shorelines.

b. Today’s Meeting. Chair Randolph reviewed the agenda for today’s meeting. There are a few changes: Items #8, #9, and #10 are interrelated components of an overall strategy for addressing alleged violations of the Paradise Cay marina in Marin County and assuring the timely completion of the marina. Item #8 involves amending the permit for the marina, Item #9 is the Board’s consideration of a cease and desist order that would require compliance with the amended permit, and Item #10 is a closed session to discuss any legal issues arising out of the enforcement decision. An appeal has been filed to Marin County’s approval of the revised plan for the marina. The revised plan is reflected in the Board’s proposed permit amendment. Legally, the Board cannot issue the amendment until there is a final local government discretionary approval for the revised plan. And without the amendment, the Board cannot issue a cease and desist order requiring compliance with the amended permit. Therefore, the Board has no choice but to allow the County appeal process to play itself out. So Items #8, #9 and #10 will not be taken up on the agenda today.

c. New Commissioners. Sunne Wright McPeak, the Secretary of the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, has appointed Jim Bourgart as her new deputy director to represent the agency on BCDC. Bijan Sartipi, the Director of Caltrans Bay Area district office, has been appointed to serve as Jim’s alternate. Jim replaces John Barna and Bijan replaces Susan Chang, both of whom have moved on to new careers. Chair Randolph welcomed the new members to BCDC. Staff has prepared draft resolutions of appreciation for John Barna and Susan Chang and asked for a motion to approve the draft resolutions.

MOTION: Commissioner Goldzband moved, seconded by Commissioner McGlashan to approve the draft resolutions for John Barna and Susan Chang. The motion passed.

d. Election Results. In last week’s election, Commissioner Rich Gordon was re-elected to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, and Alice Lai-Bitker is in a runoff for re-election to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors. Chair Randolph said he is sure the Commission joins him in congratulating Mr. Gordon on his Victory and wishing Ms. Lai-Bitker the best in her continuing campaign.
In addition, a number of former Commission members were involved in races. They include: Dianne Feinstein, who won the Democratic primary for the United States Senate seat she now holds; Anna Eshoo and Zoe Lofgren won the Democratic primaries for their Congressional seats; Leland Yee won the Democratic primary for a California State Senate seat; Loni Hancock won the Democratic primary for re-election to the California Assembly; Michael Sweeney was elected mayor of the City of Hayward; Jackie Speier lost the Democratic primary for Lieutenant Governor; Cynthia Murray lost the Democratic primary for a seat in the California Assembly; and Nancy Nadel lost her race for mayor of the City of Oakland.

e. Next BCDC Meeting. It will not be necessary to hold a meeting on July 6th, therefore, the next meeting will be held on July 20th. The meeting will be held here at the MetroCenter in Oakland. At that meeting the following matters will be discussed:

(1) Marin County completes its action on the Paradise Cay marina plan appeal by the first week of July, the Board will take up this matter.

(2) There will be a public hearing and a vote on an application to install a gas drilling well and extraction facilities in the Suisun Marsh.

(3) The Board will consider approving a contract with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission which would provide funding to work with MTC on a transportation planning coordination program that will focus on transit-oriented development along the Bay shoreline.

(4)The Board will receive a briefing from the director of the California State Parks Department on how the changing demographics of the state are affecting recreational demand and park planning.

(5) There will be a briefing on the status of studies on a possible bicycle access on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.

(6) The Board will consider a report on the progress it is making in carrying out the strategic plan.

f. Ex-Parte Communications. If any of our commissioners may have inadvertently forgotten to report ex-parte communications whether written or oral, they were invited you to report on such communications now.

Commissioner McGlashan said he received an e-mail from a citizen in the District where he serves on Paradise Cay.

6. Report of the Executive Director. Mr. Travis provided the following report:

a. Budget for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2006. The budget the Legislature is submitting to the Governor includes a one million dollar augmentation to the budget proposed by the Governor for BCDC. In addition, the Legislature requested that BCDC revise its permit fee schedule to recover 50 percent of the cost of the permit program, or about $600,000 annually in General Fund revenue.

Although the business community ordinarily opposes fee increases, the Bay Area Council, the Bay Planning Coalition and the Bay Dredging Action Coalition have offered unqualified support for the action taken by the Legislature and will work with BCDC to develop a new permit fee schedule that will achieve the objectives described by the Legislature and it will be more equitable to permit applicants.

b. Personnel. Michelle Levenson will be starting a one-year leave of absence on August 1st 2006 to care for the child she is expecting to arrive in mid-August. An internal transfer will backfill her position.

Chris Besenty has decided to move on to other career opportunities. As a result, he will be leaving at the end of August. Chris has done a sensational job.

Senior Assistant Attorney General Matt Rodriquez has assigned Alice Busching Reynolds to serve as the principal Deputy Attorney General providing support to BCDC. Joel Jacobs will still be available if needed, but he is handling a lot of litigation for the Coastal Commission.

c. Federal Evaluation. The final report from the federal evaluation of the California coastal management program for the period of May 2001 through February 2005 was presented. The evaluation team visited California in February 2005 and spent about a week meeting with staff, Board members, other agencies and members of the public familiar with BCDC’s work. Their observations and conclusions of the evaluation team are quite complimentary, especially regarding BCDC’s many accomplishments. They offered one suggestion to improve the program, and that is that BCDC continue to seek augmented funding.

7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matter. Mr. McAdam was available to answer any questions on the administrative listing that was provided to the Commissioners. There were no questions on the administrative matters.

8. Public Hearing and Vote on Material Amendment No. 11 to BCDC Permit No. 8-01 San Francisco/Oakland East Span Replacement Project of the Bay Bridge, Caltrans. Chair Randolph said this hearing is to amend Special Condition 11-F-10 in the permit that BCDC issued in 2001 authorizing the replacement of the eastern span of the, Sam Francisco/Oakland Bay Bridge. Michelle Levenson provided the following background information.

BCDC Permit No. 8-01, was originally issued to Caltrans in November of 2001 for replacement of the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Caltrans seeks Commission authorization to amend the off-site mitigation requirements contained in Special Condition II-F-10 of the permit. Specifically, Caltrans seeks one additional year to begin commencement of the removal of structures and hazardous materials on Skaggs Island (located in Sonoma County). In addition, Caltrans seeks authorization to further specify how the mitigation funds would be spent on Skaggs Island.

Staff believes that the proposed changes raise one issue: whether the modifications to Special Condition II-F-10 are consistent with the Bay Plan policies on mitigation.

Ms. Levenson introduced Melissa Barrow with Caltrans.

Ms. Barrow said Caltrans strongly supports the restoration of Skaggs Island. As noted in the permit, Caltrans will be funding the removal of the existing infrastructure to facilitate the land transfer to the future land steward. Caltrans will act as the funding mechanism and does not have a preference as to how the funding is used. Caltrans is committed to compliance with the BCDC permit and believes that the restoration of Skaggs Island provides an opportunity to significantly improve the environmental quality of the Bay.

Al Wright, Executive Director of the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) said originally the intent was to transfer Skaggs Island to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), but for a number of reasons this has not happened. Another approach would be for the State to take title to the Island and sign a lease agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the USFWS would restore and manage the Island as part of the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge.

In January the General Services Administration issued a notice of surplus determination, meaning the property was available. The Wildlife Conservation Board responded to the notice, and affirmed that the State was interested in the property with conditions. In order to bring this to conclusion, several things needed to occur. The next step is to file the application with the General Services Administration to take title of the Island. The Wildlife Conservation Board will file the application after the following three things occur:

1. When a lease agreement is signed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to take on the long-term management and maintenance of the Island;

2. The Wildlife Conservation Board will not take on significant liability for the State. There are buildings and significant clean-up that needs to be done, as well as a legal obligation to keep the property adjacent to the Navy property dry. There is significant pumping and levee maintenance costs that needs to be taken care of prior to the WCB taking title of the Island; and

3. The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSL) is continuing to work with the Navy on clean-up of the Island. Once DTC has issued a determination that the Island has been remediated appropriately, then the WCB can assume title of the Island.

Assuming the permit is extended for one more year to allow time to finish this project, there will be money needed for the clean-up, the buildings, and annual levee maintenance and pumping costs. The proposal is to use $6 million for clean-up of the buildings. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a contractor on site and will give the Wildlife Conservation Board an estimate for the cost. The other $2 million will be put in an endowment and the interest from the endowment will be used to pay the annual levee maintenance and pumping costs. When these obligations go away, for instance, if a public agency were to acquire the adjacent lands and the pumping and maintenance costs were no longer necessary, presumably the interest from the funds could be rolled into the restoration work of the Island and then the $2 million would be at Caltrans and BCDC’s discretion.

Once the above conditions have been met the application will be filed. Once the application is approved, a quit claim deed for the property would be placed in escrow. When the clean-up is completed the Wildlife Conservation Board will take title and hopefully on the Island close by the end of the year.

The hurdle will be if the building removal costs exceed $6 million. Mr. Wright said he will have to wait and see what the estimates will be and these are expected in early July.

Commissioner Bates asked if one year is a realistic estimate for the removal of the hazardous material. He said when property is sold, that generally it is the responsibility of the seller to clean up the property. He asked why the Navy is not taking care of this expense.

Mr. Wright said the timeline is contingent upon the things he spoke about earlier. Two significant hurdles will be whether the BCDC approves or disapproves WCB’s proposal, and the second is the record of decision from the Navy on the clean-up which presumes an agreement with the Department of Toxic and Substances Control.

The Navy said this property is a donation and they plan to spend no more money on this Island. The Navy in San Diego has said all available funds have been diverted for other purposes.

Commissioner Bates said he thinks that the interest on the $2 million should go to the East Shore State Park so they can have an opportunity to move forward on some of their projects.

Mr. McAdam said there will be a mechanism in place. If this deal falls through, by 2007, the money would be diverted to other mitigation sources, including East Shore State Park.

Mr. Travis said on the issue of the Navy, the Defense Department in general has been grossly under funded for clean-up of contaminants on virtually all of the military bases across the United States.

Mr. Wright said the state is contributing $8 million to facilitate this transfer which is a significant contribution.

Commissioner Mossar asked what is most expensive; the pumping or the maintenance of the levee. Mr. Mendell Stewart with the USFWS said he didn’t know. He knows that there are levees that are in disrepair, and there are pumps that have not been maintained adequately. He doesn’t know the level of the inadequacy. He believes that $30,000 annually for pumping would be an accurate number. He wants to get out from under pumping as soon as possible and that is the reason for the restoration.

Mr. McAdam said the WCB is using an interesting technique of having a fund set aside to provide monies on an annual basis for operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. O&M costs are woefully underfunded at the state and federal levels, so having this $2 million there to allow them to draw from until the restoration happens and the area is returned to tidal action is clever.

Commissioner Waldeck said there are enough mechanisms in place and personnel with experience with similar projects so that this is not a big gamble on anybody’s part. He hopes that the WCB goes forward with this project.

Public Hearing and Comments

There was no public comment.

MOTION: Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Vice Chair Halsted to close the public hearing. The motion passed.

Michelle Levenson presented the staff recommendation and commented that three letters had been received in support of the proposed changes. Additionally, Ms. Levenson state that staff would like to include language into Special Condition II-F-10 that allows the $6 million to be provided to the Navy, or a public agency, that is approved by the Commission.

The staff recommends that the Commission approve Material Amendment No. Sixteen to BCDC Permit No. 8-01. The Material Amendment would result in changes to special condition II-F-10 that would allow additional time to commence the removal of buildings and structures on Skaggs Island and would further specify how mitigation funds would be spent. The changes to the special condition would allow for the eventual transfer of the property from the Navy to the State and ultimately to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. This is a necessary step for the eventual restoration of the site to tidal action.

Commissioner Smith said that he supports the staff’s decision. This is an extraordinary opportunity to restore wetlands throughout the Bay. This could be one of the biggest wetlands restoration projects west of the Mississippi River. The year extension that has been requested is absolutely appropriate.

Commissioner Bates said when the motion is put forward he would ask for Commission consideration for the interest that will be accrued on the $2 million to be given to the East Shore State Parks.

MOTION: Commissioner Smith moved, seconded by Commissioner Goldzband to approve staff’s recommendation.

MOTION FOR AN AMENDMENT: Commissioner Bates moved to include in the motion that the interest accrued from the $2 million to be placed in an endowment allocated to East Shore State Parks. He asked the maker of the motion to include this amendment in his motion.

Commissioner Smith declined the amendment because there is an appreciable benefit for people in the East Bay with the restoration of Skaggs Island. He pointed out that the East Bay was the only other area that received $2.5 million in mitigation funds as a result of the original authorization.

Chair Randolph asked if there was a second on the amendment.

Commissioner Mossar asked what the dollar amount on the interest was. Mr. McAdam said it is approximately $350,000. Commissioner Mossar asked Mr. Wright what would happen if they did not receive the $350,000. Mr. Wright said to date his Board has spent over $100,000 around San Francisco Bay, in addition to allocating some money to the Coastal Conservancy in order for them to focus on recreation priorities while his Board focused on the wildlife priorities. He cannot use bond money for these kinds of purposes so it is a very unique opportunity to have this available to get the clean-up done on the Island so that he can then proceed with the restoration of the Island. He is not aware of any other fund source and it would be very difficult to find additional dollars.

Commissioner Waldeck asked if re-allocating this money is in the Board’s purview. Mr. Travis said thoughtful public policy is completely in the Board’s realm.

Commissioner Bates asked if the clean-up costs come to more than $6 million, how long do they have to commence the project. Mr. McAdam said they have until 2010 to begin restoration. They have until 2007 to begin remediation. If they don’t begin remediation before 2007 the money will go back into the pot. They are scheduled to complete the project by August 2007.

Mr. Wright said he cannot conceive a situation where he would start the contract if he couldn’t finish it. Commissioner Bates said there could be a contract to do a certain amount, and if he gets an estimate for remediation and doesn’t have the funds to cover it, then that portion would be commenced. He asked Mr. Wright if he would be comfortable if the motion was amended to reflect this. Mr. Wright said he will commit to the Board that he will not do this in stages. He said he will have funds for the entire clean-up because that is the only way he will be able to take title to the Island. Commissioner Bates said if this can be reflected in the recommendation then he will withdraw his proposal.

Mr. McAdam asked if on page 3, third paragraph starting with “The $6 million” to consider adding after the words “place into escrow” the following: “And that there is sufficient funds to complete the remediation project”.

Ms. Barrow said that Caltrans is in agreement with the above addition. Mr. Wright said the language is acceptable, but he would ask that there be a rapid concurrence process. Perhaps the Board can give authority to staff if he demonstrates he has sufficient funds to cover the contract costs.

MOTION: Commissioner Smith moved; seconded by Commissioner Goldzband to amend his original motion to include the change in language and that staff has the ability to determine sufficiency of funds to remediate the site. Motion carried with one abstention.

VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 17-0-1 with Commissioners Pottert, Bates, Bourgart, Smith, Leonard, Fernekes, Gibbs, Goldzband, Messina, McGlashan, Mossar, Moy, Owen, Kato, Waldeck, Chair Randolph and Vice Chair Halsted voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and Commissioner Gordon Abstaining.

9. Briefing on Climate Protection Program. Mr. Blanchfield provided background information on the Climate Protection Program. In 1985 the Commission initiated a review of possible effects of sea level rise on San Francisco Bay. The Commission found that many scientists have predicted that the rise will accelerate over the next century because of the greenhouse effect. Some scientists said that sea level could rise up to 4 feet globally, including San Francisco Bay, by the year 2100. This would have profound effects on the Bay and the shoreline.

This past year the Commission renewed its focus on climate change and its effect on the Bay by adopting a strategic plan objective to work with other agencies and organizations to develop ways of assessing and responding to the impacts of global climate change on the Bay, and directed staff to develop such a program.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management district has initiated a visionary and exciting climate protection summit to be held in San Francisco this fall. Mr. Jack Broadbent, Executive Officer for the Air District and the architect of the climate protection is here to discuss the summit and the District’s climate protection program.

Mr. Broadbent said the Bay Area Air Quality District is the local air control agency for the nine county region and is essentially responsible for maintaining a healthful air quality for the nine county region.

Regional leadership is critical on this issue. The federal government has locally neglected its responsibility and clearly local, regional and state levels are stepping up to what he believes is an important issue.

Higher temperatures affect the emissions in the Bay Area and everyone needs to be engaged in planet protection.

The District began taking some initial steps last year. On June 1st, the Board of Directors took a very important historic step in recognizing the problem and establishing the Climate Protection Program. The Governor established a state program as well. The District has joined the regional and state efforts by participating in the Planet Action Team and have sponsored many events.

The District’s Governing Board is comprised of 22 members and there is an Ad Hoc Climate Protection Committee which is very active in the efforts of the Bay Area District.

There is a key bill, 8032, based on a bill that was adopted and put into law a few years back that establishes standards to control climate change precursors for motor vehicles. These are being litigated by the motor vehicle industry.

A leadership program was established on June 1, 2005 and included six initiatives, including a Climate Protection Summit. This program has already integrated and is becoming a part of the mission at the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

On November 10, 2006 the Summit will have key speakers and it will be held in San Francisco. The purpose is to highlight the need for action.

California Climate Action Registry is an important vehicle and he encouraged everyone to participate in this effort.

It makes sense to help identify sources of greenhouse gas emissions at schools, identify reduction strategies, and provide educational opportunities.

The District is moving forward and integrating climate change into its programs. A big part of the District is providing grants to clean-up. The District is updating its CEQA guidelines and should be completed by the beginning of next year.

There are a great deal of opportunities to partner with BCDC and the District and he hopes this will occur in the future.

Commissioner Leonard said he applauds what the District is doing and the Bay Area needs to do what it can to be a model. He said we also need to be looking at the bigger picture. The impacts of coal emission plants in China cumulatively are having an impact on air quality here. We need to look at this as a frightening form of spreading disease. He hopes the District will look at what it would do in dealing with a disease which is defined, if possible, low cost and with widely applicable technologies and approaches which can be used outside of the Bay Area because this would be a way of leveraging the interest and the talent the Bay Area has.

Commissioner Mossar said there is a sense of urgency in this matter. Harvard university has set up a department that manages green buildings and other initiatives at the University. Every staff member of the Department is paid for by savings that Harvard generates by its green initiatives. She referred Mr. Broadbent to Harvard to look at their innovation towards this subject.

Chair Randolph said the Bay Area Science and Innovation Consortium are made up of the Directors from the five national laboratories around the Bay. He has a first draft from them which is an amazing document. When it comes out in final form, he will get a copy to Mr. Broadbent.

Commissioner McGlashan said there is a group called Next Generation that is in Marin County. It is developing a business plan now for a green school initiative to roll out in the fall and he suggested that Mr. Broadbent contact them.

10. Briefing on PPIC Survey. Jennifer Paluch provided a briefing on a recent poll undertaken by the Public Policy Institute of California to survey the opinions of Californians on environmental issues. This survey was funded by the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and the focus of her presentation included the public’s perception of marine and coastal areas, the rankings of these area policies and the governing bodies that they trust to take care of the marine and coastal environment.

The survey took place in February and 2003 California adults were interviewed in English and Spanish. Eighty five percent of residents said that ocean and beach pollution along the coast is at least somewhat of a problem and 50 percent said it is a big problem.

It was found that south coast residents are a bit more likely to say that they find it a big concern (58 percent) than those on the north coast and inland residents.

Four in ten residents overall rate the health and quality of the ocean for marine life as excellent or good while only half stated it is not so good or poor.

South coast residents are more likely than those on the north coast to say the health and quality for marine life is not so good or poor.

Forty eight percent said the overall health and quality for the ocean has gotten worse; another 29 percent say the health and quality has remained the same; while only 15 percent are saying better.

Residents in all demographic groups are generally negative about these trends over time with fewer than five saying that it has gotten any better in the past 20 years.

When we asked about the next upcoming 20 years we found that Californians are a bit more optimistic with a quarter saying the ocean quality will be getting better and another quarter saying it will just stay the same.

A majority of Californians rated the beaches as being excellent or good. Although residents’ assessment of public beaches are far more positive than their assessment of health and quality of ocean for marine life, very few would go so far as to say that any are excellent.
Regarding marine concerns, 44 percent of residents mentioned the contamination of fish and seafood as a big problem, followed by over fishing by commercial fishing.

Residents indicated that they were most concerned about ocean and beach pollution from streets and storm drains, followed by too much growth and development.

Nearly all Californians view the condition of oceans and beaches as important to their quality of life, with 70 percent saying it is very important to their quality of life, and 24 percent saying somewhat important.

Total perceptions today are also similar to what was found in 2003 with nine in ten Californians viewing the condition of ocean and beaches as very important or somewhat important to the California economy.

When it comes to handling the state’s marine and coastal issues, Californians say they trust state and local governments equally. The trust in local government has grown 6 points since this question was last asked in November 2003.

Six in ten Californians say the federal government is not doing enough to protect the coastal and marine environment.

Two thirds of state residents oppose allowing more oil drilling off the coast even in the current context of rising energy prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Seven in ten Californians support reducing ocean and beach pollution from the streets and storm drains even if this means paying higher fees and taxes.

Sixty seven percent of Californians favor restricting private development along the coast, even if this means there is less housing available in the area.

Seventy five percent of Californians favor protecting wetlands and habitats near the bay and beaches even if it means less commercial activities near the coast.

Seventy one percent of residents are in favor of creating more marine reserves even if this means that some ocean areas will be off limits to commercial and recreational fishing.

Californians consider the condition of ocean and beaches just as important to them personally as the state’s quality of life and economy. Nine in ten residents rate coastal quality as important to them.

A majority of all adults say they eat fish or other seafood once a week or more. Despite the regular consumption of fish and seafood Californians are concerned about possible contaminants in their food. Sixty four percent are very concerned about toxins in the fish they eat. This percentage has risen from the 2003 survey.

Nearly half of the residents who eat fish frequently are very concerned about commercial over fishing.

In conclusion, residents are concerned about their marine and coastal environment, and beach quality is considered much higher than that of ocean quality. Residents would like to see both the state and federal government do more to protect the marine and coastal environment and there is support for the protection of the environment even with many of the tradeoffs. Environmental interest and participation is very high.

Mr. Travis said what he found fascinating about the results of this survey is that 94 percent of Californians believe the quality of the coast and ocean is important to the quality of life, and 93 percent find it is important to the economy.

11. Consideration of Strategic Plan Report. Mr. Travis said there are no changes needed on any of the deadlines and the strategic plan is moving along.

12. New Business. There was no new business.

13.Old Business. There was no old business.

MOTION: Commissioner Mossar moved, seconded by Commissioner Bates, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.

14. Adjournment. Upon motion by Commissioner Mossar, seconded by Commissioner Bates, the meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Executive Director

Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of July 20, 2006