August 17, 2006 Commission Meeting Minutes

Approved Minutes of August 17, 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 1:15 p.m.

2. Roll Call. Present were: Chair Randolph, Vice Chair Halsted (represented by Alternate Chappell), Commissioners Baird (represented by Alternate Potter), Bates, Fernekes, Gibbs (represented by Alternate McClure), Gioia, Goldzband, Gordon, Hicks, Jordan, Kniss (represented by Alternate Carruthers), Kondylis, Lundstrom, McGlashan, Mossar, Nelson, Peskin (represented by Alternate Owen), Thayer (represented by Alernate Kato), Wagenknecht and Waldeck. Also in attendance Legislative member Mary Ann Ruiz.
Not Present were: Business, Transportation & Housing Agency (Bourgart), Sonoma County (Brown), Department of Finance (Klass), Alameda County (Lai-Bitker), Governors Appointee (Moy), and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Schwinn).

3. Public Comment Period. Chair Randolph welcomed everyone to the BCDC meeting.
David Lewis, Executive Director of Save the Bay, encouraged everyone to get out on the Bay before December 2006 and pointed out the many opportunities and areas on the Bay to visit.

Commissioner Carruthers mentioned the passing of Sue Bierman and acknowledged the achievements in public service Sue Bierman contributed to the Bay area and asked if they could adjourn the meeting in her memory this afternoon and for the staff to send the Commission’s condolences.

4. Approval of Minutes of July 20, 2006 Meeting. Chair Randolph entertained a motion to adopt the minutes.
MOTION: Commissioner Mossar moved, seconded by Commissioner McGlashan to approve the July 20, 2006 minutes. The motion carried with five abstentions.

5. Report of the Chair. Chair Randolph mentioned that Item Number 8 from the agenda would be discussed after Items Number 9, 10, and 11, which are all linked issues.

a. New Commissiner. Chair Randolph welcomed Barry Nelson, the newest Commissioner, representing the Public and appointed by the Senate Rules Committee. He is with the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
b.Resolutions. Chair Randolph moved to approve Resolutions of Appreciation for Betsey Cutler and John Leonard.

MOTION: Commissioner McGlashan moved, seconded by Commissioner Goldzband to approve Resolutions of Appreciation for Betsey Cutlerand John Leonard. The motion carried.

Chair Randolph also stated that they had planned on adjourning the meeting in Sue Bierman’s memory.

c. Chair Randolph stated that the next BCDC meeting is going to be held September 7, 2006 and will be at the Ferry Building in San Francisco. The agenda will be voting on revising the provisions in the Bay Plan dealing with recreation, a briefing on the plan for enhancing wildlife habitat in the South Bay Salt Ponds, a briefing on the status of studies on possible bicycle access on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and a briefing on the work of the San Francisco Bay Harbor Safety Committee.

d. Ex-Parte Communications. Chair Randolph then asked if there were any ex-parte communications. Commissioner McGlashan mentioned he had some ex-parte communications with residents of Strawberry regarding their dredging permit, which occurred last week, and he has dealt with Steve McAdam on some of the matters.

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

a. Personnel. He started by mentioning the most recent personnel issues. He stated that Ming Yeung has moved over from her enforcement position to fill in for Michelle Levenson of the permit staff while she is taking a one-year maternity leave. He stated they are proposing to hire Carolynn Box to fill the resulting vacancy in enforcement. He stated they are proposing to hire Elsa Gomez as a web programmer to replace Chris Besenty. He further stated that they are proposing to fill the dredging section position with David Canny. He lastly stated that they propose to hire Karen Wolowicz as a permit analyst. He finally stated that he will appoint these four candidates unless the Commission says otherwise.

b. Contracts. Mr. Travis advised the Commission that he intends to renew their contract with the Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) which will provide BCDC with up to $186,000 this fiscal year.

c. Reports. Mr. Travis brought to the attention of the Commission three documents sent to the Commissioners:
(1) A notice that they are starting the process of amending their regulations in order to make them consistent with the current provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, and this will be heard on October 5, 2006.

(2) The second is a yearly monitoring report regarding the amount of cargo moving through Bay Area ports. Of note, for the second consecutive year, the amount of maritime cargo moving through the Bay has surpassed forecasts and is at a ten percent increase this year over last.

(3) Passed out to the Commissioners is a July 21, 2006 document which transmits the newly-approved sections of the regulations dealing with the location of a port priority use area in Oakland, to be inserted into each Commissioner’s reference copy of the regulations.

d. Litigation. Executive Director Travis stated that a local citizens’ group has filed a lawsuit seeking a court order prohibiting the commencement of service between San Francisco and Alcatraz against Hornblower Yachts and related entities. They allege that the National Park Service awarded a contract to Hornblower Yachts for ferry service without obtaining a BCDC permit and without conducting environmental reviews that would be necessary for BCDC to issue a permit. A hearing is scheduled for September 6, 2006. Staff has been working with the Attorney General to determine if a BCDC permit is in fact required for this activity.

7. Commission Consideration of Administrative Matters. Executive Director Travis mentioned that if there were any questioning regarding administrative matters, Steve McAdam is available to respond to any questions. There were no questions from the Commissioners regarding administrative matters.

8. Public Hearing and Vote to Ratify the Issuance of a Non-Material Amendment to BCDC Permit No. 6-91 (Amendment No. Eight): Paradise Cay Marina, Marin County. Chair Randolph stated that Item Number 9 is a public hearing and vote on whether to ratify the staff’s decision to issue a non-material amendment to a permit for the Paradise Cay Marina. Chair Randolph stated that due to public concern and history regarding this issue, BCDC has decided to hold a public hearing on this matter, then decide whether the amendment should be approved. This issue was postponed to August 17, 2006, from the June 15, 2006 meeting due to an appeal raised by a neighbor of the marina. Item Number 9, 10, and 11 are interrelated as a link strategy to address the issues surrounding Paradise Cay and to ensure timely completion of the project. Item Number 9 involves amending the permit for the marina. Item Number 10 is BCDC’s consideration of a cease and desist order that would require compliance with the amended permit, and Item Number 11, if needed, is a closed session to discuss any legal ramifications arising from the enforcement decision. He further stated that they will hold separate votes on each of the two items. He then introduced Ming Yeung to take over the meeting in giving more background information on the issues.

Ms. Yeung reiterated much of what Chair Randolph spoke of concerning the issues of Paradise Cay. Ms. Yeung began by giving a history of the Paradise Cay Marina project which started in 1992 and of which the Commission issued for this project BCDC Permit No. 6-91.

Ms. Yeung stated that in July of 2005, BCDC staff began an enforcement action against the permittee K.M.C., Inc. for alleged violations to the permit and for alleged unauthorized fill and uses in the Bay and shoreline band. She further stated that as part of the resolution to the alleged violations, K.M.C. Inc. stipulated to the terms of a proposed cease and desist order and civil penalty order and agreed to seek an amendment to the permit that would address the remaining violations at the site as well as a timely completion of the project by August 31, 2007.

Ms. Yeung stated that Agenda Item Number 9 is a public hearing and vote to ratify the issuance of proposed Amendment No. 8 to Permit 6-91 by the Executive Director. The proposed amendment would grant a time extension for work that is currently overdue and for the overall completion of the project by August 31, 2007. She further stated that the proposed amendment would authorize the temporary storage of materials and equipment at the site with conditions on their storage and use. Additional conditions were added to address the placement of pilings, noise disturbance, and routine, in-kind repairs and maintenance at the site. She also stated that the proposed amendment would authorize the reconfiguration of the marina layout that would reduce the total authorized amount of Bay fill for docks and gangways by 10,556 square feet in order to accommodate fewer but larger boat berths at the marina which is not part of the current enforcement action.

Ms. Yeung stated that although these are minor amendments that can be approved solely by the Executive Director, BCDC decided to have the Commissioners vote on it by a majority vote to ratify the Executive Director’s decision due to the controversial nature of the project.

Ms. Yeung stated that Agenda Item No. 10 is a public hearing and vote on the Enforcement Committee’s recommendation on the proposed stipulated cease and desist and civil penalty order which would require K.M.C. Inc. and its Vice-President Tom Moseley, to comply with all the terms and conditions of proposed Amendment No. 8 to Permit 6-91. The order would also require K.M.C. Inc. to pay a civil penalty of $37,400, $23,900 of which would be stayed if K.M.C. Inc. and Tom Mosely comply with the terms and conditions of the order.

Ms. Yeung finally stated that Agenda Item 11 provides the Commissioners with the option to discuss the proposed cease and desist and civil penalty order in closed session.

Ms. Yeung also stated that at the June 1, 2006, meeting, the Enforcement Committee raised two concerns. The first was in response to the homeowners’ concern that the language in Special Condition II-L of that amendment that requires equipment brought to the project site to be used within a reasonable period of time was to vague. The homeowners have since withdrawn their request for more specific language on this condition because K.M.C. has agreed to post weekly updates on the Paradise Cay Homeowners’ Association website to notify homeowners of the project’s status.

Ms. Yeung also stated the second concern of several homeowners was the absence of a requirement in the proposed amendment for a containment boom around the entire marina to catch debris that may escape into the Bay and wash ashore onto the neighbors’ property. This was discussed with the permittee’s representative, Mr. Clausen, who indicated that a boom would be impractical because of the need for a constant boat and barge access in and out of the marina during construction. She stated that Mr. Clausen will respond to this concern in his presentation.

Ms. Yeung next focused on Agenda Item No. 9 and noted that the staff recommends that the Commission vote yes to ratify the issuance of proposed Amendment No. 8 to Permit 6-91 by the Executive Director. She further stated that the staff believes that the proposed amendment adequately addresses the outstanding enforcement issues and is consistent with the Commission’s law and policies and recommends approval.

Mr. Kers Clausen, structural engineer and marine engineer, stated how much work had been done on the project in the last six months among the applicant, BCDC, and Marin County, including the amendment, the stipulated order, and the project in general. Mr. Clausen mentioned the changes over to larger berths for larger vessels were due to marketing changes that have been observed in marinas in San Francisco Bay. He further stated that they are very happy with the changes BCDC staff has brought up. He stated that they agree with the amendment. He mentioned their website that gives all updates regarding equipment coming in and out of the marina. He stated that a containment boom would make construction of the docks difficult and that floating debris would only be a problem during the disassembly of the existing docks. He cited the current condition in the permit that requires the permittee to pick up any debris that may escape into the Bay. He stated that the permittee has a program in place to clean-up debris that may escape. He concluded by asking the Commission to approve Amendment No. 8 and the other items. He stated that with the approval of Amendment No. 8 the project can move on.

Mr. Sean Hedgecock, a resident of Paradise Cay Marina, presented the Commission a petition of approximately 170 signatures supporting the Paradise Cay Yacht Harbor.

Ms. Patty, a resident of Paradise Cay Marina, read into the record a letter written by another homeowner, Ms. Jolima, who couldn’t be present. supporting Amendment No. 8 to permit 6-91 and the Cease and Desist Order No. CCD 1-06. The letter stated that the homeowners hoped the project would be completed on time but that they were skeptical given Mr. Moseley’s record. The letter stated that the homeowners would oppose any further extensions.

Chair Randolph asked Mr. Clausen if he had reviewed the proposed permit and amendment and supported the amendment, and Mr. Clausen answered in the affirmative.

MOTION: Motion moved by Commissioner McClure to support the staff’s recommendation, and seconded by Commissioner McGlashan. There was discussion by the Commission and thanks given to the BCDC staff, K.M.C., Tom Moseley, and the homeowners of Paradise Cay Marina for their patience and participation in getting the project moving forward.

MOTION: There was a motion made by Commissioner Carruthers and seconded by Commissioner McClure to approve closing the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.

VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 20-0-0 with Commissioners Potter, Bates, Fernekes, McClure, Gioia, Goldzband, Gordon, Hicks, Jordan, Carruthers, Kondylis, Lundstrom, McGlashan, Mossar, Nelson, Owen, Kato, Wagenknecht, Waldeck, and Chair Randolph voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions.

9. Public Hearing and Vote on a Recommended Enforcement Decision Concerning Proposed Stipulated Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD 1-06; Thomas J. Moseley and K.M.C. Inc. (Paradise Cay Marina). Commissioner Mossar stated that after considering the staff’s recommendations and testimony from the respondent and public regarding proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD 1-06 and considering the portions of proposed Amendment No. 8 to Permit No. 6-91, that pertain to the enforcement issues, the Committee recommends that the Commission adopt the enforcement decision and issue the proposed Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD 1-06 to Thomas Moseley and K.M.C. Inc. She further stated that the Committee believes that the above addresses the outstanding alleged violations at the project site and will encourage completion of the entire project by August 31, 2007.

Mr. Clausen stated that K.M.C. Inc. and Mr. Moseley agree with the findings.

MOTION: There was a motion made by Commissioner Carruthers to close the public hearing and seconded by Commissioner Kondylis to approve closing the public hearing. The motion carried.

MOTION: There was a motion made by Commissioner Mossar and seconded by Commissioner McGlashan to approve the staff’s recommendation of Item No. 10. Roll call was taken, and the motion carried.

VOTE: The motion carried with a roll call vote of 20-0-0 with Commissioners Potter, Bates, Fernekes, McClure, Gioia, Goldzband, Gordon, Hicks, Jordan, Carruthers, Kondylis, Lundstrom, McGlashan, Mossar, Nelson, Owen, Kato, Wagenknecht, Waldeck, and Chair Randolph voting “YES”, no “NO” votes and no abstentions

10. Closed Session to Deliberate on a Recommended Enforcement Decision Involving the Proposed Stipulated Cease and Desist and Civil Penalty Order No. CCD 1-06; Thomas J. Moseley and K.M.C. Inc. (There was no closed session).

11. Public Hearing on Proposed Bay Plan Amendment 2-06 to Update the San Francisco Bay Plan Recreation Findings and Policies, the Bay Plan May Notes, Policies and Suggestions and Resolution 16. Joe LaClair made a comprehensive Power Point presentation presenting the staff’s preliminary recommendation on Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-06 regarding the Bay Plan Recreation findings and policies, plan maps and Resolution 16. He stated that Bay Plan Amendment No. 2-06 would update the Bay Plan Recreation findings and policies to reflect changes in demographics, population growth, changes in public preferences and practices in recreation, and management issues such as accessibility, interim uses, and the compatibility of recreation and wildlife. The amendment also addresses historic buildings in waterfront parks and wildlife refuges and the recreation potential of wildlife refuges and appropriate limits. The proposed amendments are based on the staff background report entitled, Recreation in the San Francisco Bay. He then stated that the staff recommends that the Commission amend the Bay Plan Recreation and Findings and Policies as outlined in the preliminary recommendation including the amendment of Bay Plan map notes, policies, suggestions and waterfront park priority use area designations and amend Resolution 16 which sets the boundaries of those water-oriented uses of waterfront parks. Mr. La Clair’s PowerPoint presentation outlined concerns and suggestions by way of letters sent to BCDC from interested organizations in the Bay Area concerned with the amendments.

Mr. Paul Kamen, Berkeley Waterfront Commission, commented that Amendment No. 8 doesn’t take into account future use of on-site storage, clubs, co-op ownership, university facilities, and marinas due to more expensive and scarce parking at the marinas and the architectural trends away from backyards and smaller garages making storage less likely for personal storage of watercraft. He further noted that residential density around older urban waterfronts will continue to increase, private vehicles will become smaller which will adversely affect the safety of transporting small watercraft, and automotive travel to distant bodies of water will become more expensive thus making marinas closer to home a more attractive alternative of recreation.

Mr. Jim McGrath, Bay Access and San Francisco Board Sailors, mentioned the benefits of recreation on the Bay for youngsters. He recommended the Commission recognize in their findings stewardship, the value of the institutions and access to the water as something that provides stewardship values, the institutions that are accomplishing the stewardships. He also stated that the Commission needs policies that protect existing access.

Mr. Greg Betts, City of Palo Alto, stated that he was pleased with the usefulness of the proposed draft that the City of Palo Alto can use as guidelines for land management. He lauded the draft’s proposed stewardship and environmental education as recreational activities. He suggested the Commission to be mindful in clarifying and articulating the differences between low-impact and high-impact activities due to damaging affects to the areas.

Mr. Whitney Dotson, lifelong resident of Richmond and involved with the North Richmond Shoreline Open Space Alliance, thanked the Commission for the draft plan that has been developed. He mentioned his group has been working on saving the North Richmond Shoreline. He stated that his group feels that appropriate recreational access to the North Richmond Shoreline will be a valuable environmental initiative to ensure that the low-income communities, the North Richmond Shoreline communities and nearby communities will have access to the shoreline which has been denied in the past.

Mr. Robert Doyle, East Bay Parks, complimented BCDC and staff on the working relationship they have with the East Bay Parks. He mentioned about $75 million dollars worth of new acquisitions for the East Bay including a large advocacy with the public, and working partnerships with BCDC, State Parks, and other environmental partners and also members of the Commission itself working on urban access to shoreline enrichment. He showed a map showing the complexity of what BCDC is doing, small and large areas, to provide recreation for communities. He stated that much has been accomplished but much to do still and encouraged the Commission not to shy away from challenges or controversies.

MOTION: There was a motion made by Commissioner Kondylis to close the public hearing and seconded by Commissioner ?? to approve closing the public hearing. The motion carried.

Commissioner Kondylis questioned Joe LaClair regarding a parcel of about 13 acres in Vallejo that BCDC allowed to be filled in several years ago with a coffer dam and asked if that was going to become part of the waterfront priority use area. Mr. LaClair stated that the City of Vallejo and BCDC Staff have proposed that the waterfront park designation be extended along the Vallejo waterfront which would include some of the 13 acres. Commissioner Kondylis stated that the requirements of that permit were that the 13 acres couldn’t be taken out but would have to revert to public parks if it were not used for the purposes of which the fill was added. Mr. LaClair stated that the proposed plan is to use the area for a mixed use of housing, office, and retail usage with a continuous waterfront promenade extending from Solano Avenue North up to the marina. Ms. Kondylis stated that they should look at the conditions of the permit because if it was not used then it had to revert to public use. Mr. LaClair stated that some of the fill was removed, and the private uses would not encroach onto the filled area.

Commissioner Mossar asked about Plan Map notes for Map No. 7, noting the Dunbarton Bridge providing for fishing and wildlife observation, maintaining an existing public path, and noted that there is the Dumbarton 20/20 Study which is looking at improving automobile access to and from the bridge on the western approach and in that area there are major plans for improving commuter rail. She stated that these long term, plans could conflict with the above Map Note and wanted to raise it as an issue that the staff will look into. Mr. LaClair stated that they are working closely with MTC, and they will take another look at it.
Commissioner Mossar mentioned that there is controversy over the phrase “non-motorized boating” because sailboats have motors and suggested that they define what they mean in the Bay Plan by non-motorized boats. Mr. LaClair stated that they also use the term small boating and that there is not one definitive term to describe smaller boats and that the staff will look into that.
Commissioner Mossar asked if the suggestions from the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space Preserve had been incorporated into the draft. Mr. LaClair responded that some of them could be incorporated but some could not because of the BCDC’s jurisdiction or being out of BCDC’s jurisdiction.

Commissioner Mossar questioned the definition of recreational use, water-related recreation, because some areas are not all water oriented such as athletic fields. She stated that some of the language in the draft discourages things that aren’t water related and asked the Commission to define what they mean by appropriate recreational use so there are no questions later. She stated that her goal over time is that the Commission has given some thoughtful guidelines about what they think is important and what they would prefer not to see.

Commissioner Gioia suggested adding some language in finding B to read “...population growth in the Bay Region will bring increases in water-oriented recreation” “...providing a variety of accessible water-oriented recreational facilities and diverse recreational opportunities at these facilities” -- adding the phrase – “for all races, ages, cultures, and income levels”. He stated it’s assumed, but it should be made clear that they’re including all races, ages, cultures, and income levels. He further stated on Page 10, Policy One, including the same verbiage after “diverse and accessible water-oriented recreational facilities such as” “...shall be provided to meet the needs of a growing and diversified population and should be well distributed around the Bay and improved to accommodate a broad range of water-oriented recreational activities” -- and then adding – “for all races, ages, cultures, and income levels”.

Commissioner Gioia asked if the word “public” was accidentally left out of finding 1, on Page 6. He also questioned why the “waterfront park” designation was not applied to the south Richmond shoreline.

Mr. LaClair stated that the correction language was taken directly from the Bay Area Ridge Trail’s website and recommended that way because Staff didn’t want to deviate from the Ridge Trail Project’s own description.

Commissioner Gioia asked about the July 31, 2006 TRAC letter’s recommendation and why it wasn’t included in the draft. Mr. LaClair responded that because the south shore of Richmond varies in width, many of the segments are not fully 100 feet wide, and so they would be designating people’s backyards and other private uses for waterfront park use there by creating non-conforming uses in some areas of that shoreline according to BCDC’s law. He also stated the parks and open spaces along the shoreline are already required in BCDC permits and consistent with the special area plan that the Commission developed in concert with the community, and so they feel there’s adequate policy and regulatory backstops for the open spaces in the special area plan and in the permits such that the designation wasn’t necessary in order to protect those open space lands. Mr. Gioia asked if it would be possible for those areas that are 100 feet or more if they could be considered park priority and some that don’t interfere with private ownership. Mr. LaClair responded that they would look into it.

Commissioner Nelson stated he supported the comments from Bay Access regarding the importance of preserving historic accesses, and that as the Bay shoreline gets more developed, that the information in the recreation planning could help the Commission make permitting decisions later on with regard to development of sites. Commissioner Nelson asked about the interactions between the recreation planning process and the port and the waterfront industry planning process. Mr. LaClair responded that Staff considered a 1986 report regarding the future demand for land for water related industry prepared for the Commission by a consultant and city plans regarding the impact, making decisions regarding recreation planning and that they would be revisiting the water-related industry policies in the next year or two.

Commissioner McGlashan asked Mr. LaClair about the balance between some of the comments from Bay Access and the comments from Marin Audubon and stated he wanted to reinforce the concern about wildlife and making sure that they’re giving that a very strong endorsement in protection. Mr. LaClair reiterated that it did in general and that they were going to look at making it a little more explicit in revisions and responding to questions. He further reiterated the clubs have provided an important means of affordable access for people to the water and education and that they would have to be careful with balancing their role in making too many land management decisions for the actual land managers because they have to implement their own land management plans.

Commissioner McGlashan further stated he wanted to reinforce Audubon’s Recommendation regarding policy 4-C. He also mentioned specific parcels in Marin where the Audubon Society has protected habitat areas that were not referred to in BCDC’s update.
Commissioner McGlashan concluded by stating the Bay Access and Mr. Kamen made reference to the idea of recreational storage facilities in appropriate areas and stated that he thought it was a brilliant recommendation to reduce automobile use.

Commissioner Carruthers commented that he was very impressed with the policy suggestions made by several of the speakers, and he asked the staff to review to what extent those were addressed in the draft and if they can be incorporated. He further stated that they don’t want to micromanage but wanted policies that support the opportunities to provide these facilities.

Commissioner Carruthers stated he was a little concerned that perhaps the draft was saying that it is only in public parks that BCDC can have recreational policies because recreation on the Bay goes far beyond the provisions of public parks, and there should be some way of acknowledging that. He further stated that he was a little uncomfortable with the policy that seems to make it impossible for BCDC to designate certain stretches of the waterfront with their recreational designation because it isn’t 100 feet wide. He stated that some of the old policies regarding this might need to be reconsidered.

Commissioner Lundstrom stated her concerns were from the water side versus getting people to the water. She stated that some of her concerns were deciding locations of launch ramps, that they acknowledge the deep draft shipping lanes safety issue, but also there are fast ferry lanes because the proposed fast ferries go 35 knots, and those on the bridge can’t see people down in the water. So there is the safety concern and there needs to be consideration from the water side in the shipping and fast ferry lanes.

Commissioner Lundstrom stated that security issues need to be recognized in the Bay Plan, that there are some no-go zones now.
Commissioner Ruiz supported what Commissioner McGlashan mentioned concerning the Audubon Society’s views. Mr. LaClair thanked her, stating that it is a real balancing act including all the proposed interests, and using the correct language.
Chair Randolph suggested that the staff touch base with the design review committee because a few meetings back John Kriken spoke as to how Bay access might be treated in a more creative way in light of the variable environments around the Bay such as urban settings versus non-urban settings and how it might impact BCDC in an urban setting.

Executive Director Travis thanked all the Commissioners for the enlightening discussion and thanked Mr. LaClair for the insightful presentation and the background report. He further stated that the discussion today illustrated how difficult it is to deal at a regional policy level with a seemingly simple subject of recreation because they have a responsibility to protect San Francisco Bay and a responsibility to be advocates for access to the Bay, and in doing so, to allow people to learn to appreciate the Bay so that everybody will share in the commitment to protect the natural resources and the wildlife of the Bay. But in exercising the responsibility they also have to acknowledge that they have a tremendously changing and diverse population in California.

Commissioner Bates asked how Proposition 90 would impact them if it passes. Executive Director Travis stated that if Proposition 90 passes, they will have to redo the whole Bay Plan and that there would be so many implications on so much of what they do as both a regulatory and planning agency. Commissioner Bates stated that he thought it was appropriate for staff to examine those questions and to make it public so people would understand some of the ramifications of their jurisdiction and how they would be able to function as a Commission in the event that would pass. Executive Director Travis stated that they were looking at what the Commission can and should do in terms of taking a policy position on that. Commissioner Bates reiterated that if the proposition passes they should know the ramifications. Commissioner Lundstrom stated that following up on what Commissioner Bates was saying, she thought they were allowed to do informational and educational stuff and that even if they can’t take a position, they should at least do so and word it cleverly.

Chair Randolph thanked them for all of their comments and suggestions to the Commission and that they will presumably revisit it at their September 7, 2006, meeting.

12. Consideration of Strategic Plan Status Report. Executive Director Travis stated that on August 11, 2006, the Commissioners were sent their monthly status report on the strategic plan, and it is the last report they will receive before they hold their workshop to update the plan which will be on Thursday, September 21, 2006. He further stated that they will have one regular Commission meeting on September 7, 2006, and then September 21, 2006, they will have the workshop at Oakland’s Preservation Park with good public transportation and parking for those driving. He stated that this was one event where both Commissioners and alternates can attend and urged everyone to reserve the full day for Commissioners and Alternates; more details and directions to follow.

13. New Business. There was no new business.

14. Old Business. There was no old business.

MOTION: Chair Randolph entertained a motion to adjourn the meeting and to do so in honor of former Commissioner Sue Bierman.

15.Adjournment. Commissioner Kondylis moved, seconded by Commissioner McGlashan, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed.

Respectfully submitted,

Executive Director

Approved, with no corrections, at the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Meeting of September 7, 2006